Google Chairman Eric Schmidt Says Android is 'Pretty Clearly' Winning the Mobile War with Apple

[rjohnstone]

Originally Posted by iGrip

No. The iPhone always was, and still is, like a Ferrari. Personally, I'm glad that the iPhone has such a small market share, like Ferrari. Cars like the Camry sell in large numbers.

What would you rather have, a Ferrari or a Camry? The choice is simple. Are you looking for the finest, high precision beautiful product? Or the one that every Tom, Dick and Hairy has in his pants?

For me, somebody who is entitled to own only the finest things in life, the answer is simple. I choose Apple.

I think you forgot to put a /s at the end of your post.

[617arg]

Originally Posted by sigamy

As for Google, I do find it lame that they inititally set out to copy the Blackberry and when the iPhone came and was a hit, they turned and copied it.

I really believe if Apple didn't release the iPhone in 2007 smartphones would still look like Blackberries and Treos today.

Exactly. Before the iPhone my phone was a RAZR. Lots of people (mostly business people) had Treos and Blackberry's, but I had no desire for a "smart" phone. They were just too complicated, and the prospect of using one to access my email or use a calendar was not at all enticing to me.

During the keynote introduction of the first iPhone you (me, you, everyone) could feel how things have just changed. Suddenly I didn't just feel like I wanted an iPhone, I felt like I needed one. It changed the game, and everyone felt it.

In no way can I believe that Eric Schmidt just happened to have an epiphany unrelated to his time on the board at Apple. As a consumer I choose to support innovation, not a company that's just trying to get in on the action........

[lazyrighteye]

Interesting. Nowhere does it mention Schmidt's role as Toht in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Looks like wiki needs an update.

What a creep.

[rjohnstone]

Originally Posted by 617arg

Exactly. Before the iPhone my phone was a RAZR. Lots of people (mostly business people) had Treos and Blackberry's, but I had no desire for a "smart" phone. They were just too complicated, and the prospect of using one to access my email or use a calendar was not at all enticing to me.

During the keynote introduction of the first iPhone you (me, you, everyone) could feel how things have just changed. Suddenly I didn't just feel like I wanted an iPhone, I felt like I needed one. It changed the game, and everyone felt it.

In no way can I believe that Eric Schmidt just happened to have an epiphany unrelated to his time on the board at Apple. As a consumer I choose to support innovation, not a company that's just trying to get in on the action........

False argument.
Android never was about the hardware.
It was always about the software and its ability to be installed on many variations of hardware.
The BB looking device was ONE of several prototypes for testing purposes.
There was also a touch only unit that everyone (Apple fans) seem to ignore.

[TMay]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

And some people just care too much about corporations. The "mobile war" as discussed here by Eric and people is about consumer mindshare, not corporate profitability.

Which guess what, no one but shareholders care about and guess what again, both Apple and Google are winning.

----------



Better than the money Apple paid for the Nortel patents ?

The $2B plus share of the total Nortel buy that Apple paid makes sense for a hardware manufacturer, and long since absorbed. Moto, on the other hand, hasn't panned out as either a savvy IP defensive buy or as a manufacturer of Android.

It's a good write off, and there is some cash that came with Moto. I suspect that Moto's threats to go after the other Android OEM's for IP infringement had something to do with Google's purchase.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by Yujenisis

The burden of proof is on you.

You stated a fact, you get to back it up. You have failed to do so because frankly, no one can.

Those are the forum rules btw. Burden of proof is on the person making an ascersion.

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by rjohnstone

False argument.
Android never was about the hardware.
It was always about the software and its ability to be installed on many variations of hardware.
The BB looking device was ONE of several prototypes for testing purposes.
There was also a touch only unit that everyone (Apple fans) seem to ignore.

Both prototypes came out almost a year after the iPhone was demoed.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by whatever

It's funny that people claim that Apple sucks at online services.

Don't they run the most successful completely online service in iTunes? To call iTunes anything more than a success is insane.

And I place them ahead of Amazon only because the iTunes store is truly a digital only service, where Amazon deals with physical goods. But if you want to add Amazon, then I would place Amazon first and Apple second.

I'm pretty sure if you read my post again, you'll find that I did say iTunes was successful. But to say Apple doesn't suck at online services, not eCommerce (I classify iTunes as eCommerce more than online services) is also insane. iTools, .Mac, MobileMe, iCloud... Ping... iWork.com, all services that have been DOA or have had a lot of usability issues.

So while they may have success doing eCommerce, Search isn't eCommerce.

----------

Originally Posted by vampyr

I am still amazed that this guy hasn't been sued by Apple.

Hmm... Eric Schmidt was a board member of Apple when Apple began working on the iPhone.
About the time the iPad began to reach public media, Eric Schmidt leave Apple board of directors.
Suddenly Google decides to get into the phone and tablet market.

Google decided to get into the phone market in 2005, 1 year before Eric joined the board.

Get your timeline straight if you're going to comment.

[sampath]

Originally Posted by Elbon

There are more ants in the world than people. Does that mean the ants are winning?

They were here before us and will most likely be around long after we are extinct, so yes, yes they are.

[Dreamer2go]

Originally Posted by iGrip

Which cons are those? What is stopping you from getting, for example, an HTC One X? A Galxy S3? Or a Droid Razr Maxx HD? What are the cons?[COLOR="#808080"]

I have a S3... just didn't like Poweramp. Couldn't live without iPod + iTunes. Music is a huge con for me for Android. Not saying it's bad, just not my thing.
I dont use "swipe key" and swiftkey wasn't as accurate to me as iphone's keyboard.

Overall, I feel iPhone's ecosystem + how simple it works fits me more.

[InuManiac]

Originally Posted by mrsir2009

You can pick up an android phone for less than a hundred bucks. Enough said.

Word....this made me realize the time I bought the Zune. POS. Realize that I got get what I paid for. I should have paid the few bucks more for the quality device instead of being cheep and impatient.

[TMay]

Originally Posted by kdarling

It was a pretty good deal. Google paid the same price per Motorola patent that Apple did for Nortel patents.

However, the Motorola patents came with a phone and settop box company that can be sold off. Apple's Nortel purchase did not.

Moreover, Motorola came with $3 billion cash reserves included. It's been using that huge reserve to keep the company going. At the rate they were losing money last year, I calculated that their reserve could keep them going for almost another half decade. Extra cost to Google: zero.

As for the patents, twice now Apple's cases against Motorola have been dismissed with prejudice. Sooner or later, Apple is going to have pay Motorola for use of their FRAND patents, and their chances for getting a good price without sharing patents keep getting slimmer.

Yes, and Moto isn't going to be able to use SEP for injunctions, so how exactly is Moto going to be able to get Apple to pay higher that FRAND? If negotiations between Apple and Moto fail, then the court decides.

If anything, Apple is fighting the basis of Moto's SEP, and in fact made an offer not to exceed $1 per device, which Moto rejected.

Moto wants basis to be the finished product. Microsoft and Apple want basis to be at the component level.

Apple will end up paying, but almost certainly, much less than Moto wants.

Moto is a white elephant as far as IP is concerned.

[-hh]

Originally Posted by 1080p

Lets's see...

Google develops a mobile OS built around it's services and give this OS away for FREE to device manufacturers so that they may collect user info and *HOPEFULLY* use that info to make money in advertising. Sells no devices of it's own....

For the first part, there's zero revenue stream there to exploit. Of course, the second part alludes to building hooks into that OS which tie into one's advertising-based revenue stream, which would be a mechanism to effect a positive cash flow and potential Return on Investment (ROI). But the problem with this second part is ... "but can those hooks be removed - - or at least changed to point to a different beneficiary?". The answer to that question is YES.

Originally Posted by neutrino23

I wonder if they have lost control of Android. Chinese companies are repurposing it without using Google search or ads. Lots of companies are using it to build feature phones which really don't present ads or use search...

Because Android is obstensively Open Source, it is impossible by definition for Google to retain control. That's why Google has tried to forstall defections by having a trademark requirement on Android(TM).

The fundamental business model problem that Google has with Android is that the advertising hooks that Google put within Android can be removed (feature phones) or replaced ... and this latter part isn't just theory: Baidu has already replaced Google in China.

Google is "locked out" of the China market due to Govt-vs-censorship issues and Baidu has stepped into that vaccume: reportedly, something like ~80% of the Android cellphones in China are running with a Baidu replacement of Google in Android OS - - this all just goes to illustrate that trying to associate marketshare to corporate revenue (and profits) is a fallacy.

Originally Posted by davidjearly

Dominance does not equal money.

Marketshare does not equal money.

Why are people not getting this?

The reason why people trip on this intellectual hurdle is because marketshare=money=dominance is true when you're talking about pure commodity markets ... and what we had in the 1990s with Windows OS running on any OEM's Intel PCs was a hybrid of a commodity market: the OS may have been proprietary, but hardware OEMs were the commodity, resulting in price wars (...and slim profit margins).

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

We're talking about it from a consumer perspective. As a consumer, I don't give 2 craps about profits. It doesn't benefit me.

YMMV. That's entirely appropriate for a consumer with a very short term perspective, such as on a consumable like today's lunch.

However, when the consumer places significance on a product's sustainment, then the health of the company can become a consideration: a company who aren't prospering is at risk of no longer existing when you might come to them with for support, such as a warranty claim. For an analogy, Saab and Suzuki automobiles are discontinued brands in the USA ... who today would choose to totally ignore this as a factor when shopping for a new car?

Originally Posted by apfeljonas

Anyone ever considered the fact that Android is pretty much installed on every dumbphone so it can be called a smartphone. If you compare Apples vs. Apples, aka High-end devices vs High-end, you see the real picture. 50/50 Apple Android.

A good point: knowing exactly what goes into a metric is often critically important to really understand what's going on in a market. And FYI, when looking further into the ROI for Google's books, there's also a couple of hundred million real smartphones in China running on Baidu (not Google) that also need to be adjusted in the counts.

Originally Posted by mrxak

I'm going to go ahead and say businessmen in charge of major corporations care about who wins the profits....

Maybe it's a sustainable business model, and Google can continue to make small profits with it, and that's fine. Apple's value will continue to be higher because they do business a lot better.

And similarly, there are business models which may look great in the short term, but which may not be sustainable over a longer term. Given how netbooks (and now eBooks appear to be) were a "boom & bust" cycle, the question harkens back to business fundementals on if Google's business strategy for Android may similarly contain a fatal flaw.

What I see as factors to contemplate include:

- the indicated 'smartphone' marketshare values for Android are polluted by feature phones;

- the indicated 'Android' marketshare values (even if corrected for the above) need to be split by the underlying revenue beneficiary (eg, Google vs Baidu);

- the ongoing fragmentation of Android OS;

- relative differences in the consumers' real world lifecycle expenses (less than 10%) versus marketing (cellphone providers heavily promote Android);

- customer retention rates (upon contract renewal: 94% vs 39%, etc).


-hh

[Pardus]

The report notes that Google has gained confidence in its model of giving away Android to handset manufacturing partners and relying on advertising, search, and other services to generate revenue.

hmm, on all my client sites which generate significant traffic, IOS averages 20% of visits while Android has around 4%

somehow I don't see how that is winning if people arent using them in the methods they are relying on for revenue.

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by TMay

Apple will end up paying, but almost certainly, much less than Moto wants.

Why certainly?

[coolspot18]

Originally Posted by davidjearly

Posts like this really make me crave a downvote button.

Dominant, in terms of marketshare. The dominance ends there.

OSX Lion/Mountain Lions has an increasing number of bugs. OSX is not (probably less) more stable than Windows 7/8 these days.

Apple really needs to fix bugs rather than release a new OS every year.

[iGrip]

Originally Posted by Dreamer2go

I have a S3... just didn't like Poweramp. Couldn't live without iPod + iTunes. Music is a huge con for me for Android. Not saying it's bad, just not my thing.
I dont use "swipe key" and swiftkey wasn't as accurate to me as iphone's keyboard.

Overall, I feel iPhone's ecosystem + how simple it works fits me more.

You said that you couldn't live with Android's cons. And you chose an Android phone over the iphone.

I'm not sure that I understand. How are you alive?

But if you think that "how simple it works" is a factor that you cannot live without, then my guess is that you are correct.

[rjohnstone]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac

Both prototypes came out almost a year after the iPhone was demoed.

Which is relevant to my statement and the previous poster's claim.

The arguments have been that BEFORE the iPhone, Android was on BB style hardware only and AFTER the iPhone it went to touch devices.
This is completely false.

Originally Posted by mrsir2009

You can pick up an android phone for less than a hundred bucks. Enough said.

You can pick up an iPhone for less than hundred bucks too... what's your point?

[TMay]

Originally Posted by Oletros

Why certainly?

Moto is pushing too hard for injunctions, and standard setting organizations and governmental bodies do not support injunctions for SEP.

Motos's (and Google's) negotiating position which centers around getting access to non SEP of Apple and Microsoft won't work without an injunction to force a quick deal; it will just receive a cash payout, and that only after extensive negotiation. Should negotiation fail, the court has to decide what the licensing rates will be.

[Yujenisis]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

You stated a fact, you get to back it up. You have failed to do so because frankly, no one can.

Those are the forum rules btw. Burden of proof is on the person making an ascersion.

I am making an assertion based on facts. From 2010-2011 the company lost BILLIONS on Android and the company is working to make up the difference.

You are claiming a contrary view that 2012 represents a financial turn-around moment for Android...based on?

Nothing.

You have no evidence other than pulling marketshare numbers which have undeniably helped Android's financial growth, but enough to offsets the years in the red and for the purchase of Motorola?

The continued silence from Google regarding Android's profitability does not support your decision to believe Android has suddenly become profitable. Would not Larry Page be singing profitability to the high heavens to appease shareholders and users?

I also think you'll find that we agree on a number of fronts:

• Android is enjoying unprecendented marketshare growth
• Any lack of profits has nothing to do with the overall quality of the Android platform or the quality of the hardware
• Profits will have no short-term impact on Google's commitment to the platform or to the mobile market
• Google's product portfolio is extremely profitable and can easily subsidize Android's financial shortcomings for a very long time
• Many companies have successfully pulled off Google's approach when entering a new industry and become profitable, such as Microsoft with the XBox

But the facts I have presented remain, until you are able to produce contrary ones, and as long as Google remains steadfastly silent - despite requests from shareholders - we can assume the profit picture is not the one that Google hopes it will be in the future.

I will happily wait for your evidence of Android's 2012 banner year. Until then, good day, sir.

[bawbac]

Originally Posted by iRCL

I love how nobody outside of core hardcore apple consumers people have any idea who the hell Tim Cook is

I sure as hell don't recognize the name. He looks like my dad though

fify

[silverblack]

We all like alternatives, and I welcome Android as an alternative.

I love my iPhone, iPad and Macs. But I don't want EVERYONE SINGLE PERSON around me to use Apple products. I like it how Apple place themselves as the luxury brand, and focus to serve those who can afford it.

The rest can buy the cheaper knockoffs.

Without the popular inferior, there is no elite superior. Let them win the market share game.

[Solomani]

We sits on their Board. We spiesss on thems! We stealses their ideas! We steals their precioussss!

[rjohnstone]

Originally Posted by silverblack

We all like alternatives, and I welcome Android as an alternative.

I love my iPhone, iPad and Macs. But I don't want EVERYONE SINGLE PERSON around me to use Apple products. I like it how Apple place themselves as the luxury brand, and focus to serve those who can afford it.

The rest can buy the cheaper knockoffs.

Without the popular inferior, there is no elite superior. Let them win the market share game.

Another person who forgot the /s tag.

Seriously... what is superior to one is garbage to another.
Apple is far from a luxury brand. High end yes, luxury... no.

You can buy an iPhone at WalMart.

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by rjohnstone

Which is relevant to my statement and the previous poster's claim.

The arguments have been that BEFORE the iPhone, Android was on BB style hardware only and AFTER the iPhone it went to touch devices.
This is completely false.

Lack of evidence doesn't prove something false. There were reports that Android shift from a blackberry-style UI to a multitouch UI was what made Steve Jobs feel betrayed by Google. I think it was in Steve Levy's book?

If you have any evidence that Android was moving forward with a multitouch UI before the iPhone was demoed, feel free to present it.