Price has got to be the only reason Android is beating out the iPhone in market share. I have an iPhone supplied by my employer and I personally bought a Razr M for my wife because we could get 4G + bigger screen for much less cash than the iPhone5. Now the build quality of the RAZR M is nice - no complaints there .. but as for Android - man what a pain in the ass. There is no consistency in the UI. Seems like everything I have done to help her get the phone the way she wants has been a battle. Sure it has lots of cutesy features that the iphone doesn't have, but very few of those features really add much if any value IMHO. My iPhone has never taken much effort to do anything - it just does what it's supposed to do.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt Says Android is 'Pretty Clearly' Winning the Mobile War with Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What war?
Sorry, but there is no war. Schmidt can say whatever he wants. I just don't care. I have three devices ... they are all Apple products. When or if Android is a better user experience, they I may consider it. Until then, I'll stick with Apple.
Sorry, but there is no war. Schmidt can say whatever he wants. I just don't care. I have three devices ... they are all Apple products. When or if Android is a better user experience, they I may consider it. Until then, I'll stick with Apple.
Last edited:
I'd just like to know what percentage of the Android market share actually benefits Google directly. What percentage uses Google services? What percentage uses Google Search? What percentage are actually used in a way that benefits Google (not just as glorified feature phones)?
80% of Android phones in China don't even use Google Search.
http://www.technologyreview.com/new...n-china-but-google-has-little-to-show-for-it/
80% of Android phones in China don't even use Google Search.
http://www.technologyreview.com/new...n-china-but-google-has-little-to-show-for-it/
Please, can you point where in those two articles there is any number saying that Google loses billions with Android?
Past successes or rather lack thereof, shouldn't discourage them, they could actually learn from them. Yes, it will take many years to get it ready for 'primetime', but they could work on this quietly, behind the scenes, and certainly now, they have the opportunity to do this the right way. If they take their time and devote adequate resources to this, they could absolutely get this 'right', and in the increasingly information-based future we're heading in, it would at the very least, put them on a level playing field. The biggest mistake they could make, would be releasing a half-baked product.
At the moment GOOGLE is holding all the cards. They have a superior product, the market value of which will grow exponentially in the future.
In the interest of APPLE's long-term survival, it is imho essential, that APPLE enter the Search arena as soon as possible.
And if your goal is mindshare, Android is clearly winning.
----------
And you can pick up an iPhone for free. I think you said too much.
The have spent 15+ billion on acquisitions related to Android. Not to mention the development expenses. The have made a few hundred million at best in Android related revenues. It's a pretty straightforward formula.
Yes, the acquisitions included assets, but I would doubt they are worth everything Google paid for them at this point.
Show Me Money
I would like to see a report comparing current revenue between what Apple is making (selling products with iOS) and what Google is making by giving Android away.
Another poster mentioned that it's not the same game and that is true.
You can't even compare this to what Apple and Microsoft did in the 80's and 90's. Because MS could should how they were making money by licensing Windows vs Apple selling Mac OS bundled with Macs.
If Google is depending on Search/Ad revenues to make money with Android then in reality Google could make as much revenue from Apple products than they do from Android today.
I would like to see a report comparing current revenue between what Apple is making (selling products with iOS) and what Google is making by giving Android away.
Another poster mentioned that it's not the same game and that is true.
You can't even compare this to what Apple and Microsoft did in the 80's and 90's. Because MS could should how they were making money by licensing Windows vs Apple selling Mac OS bundled with Macs.
If Google is depending on Search/Ad revenues to make money with Android then in reality Google could make as much revenue from Apple products than they do from Android today.
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.
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.
Clearly? Based on what?
And on the one carrier where Android has no pricing advantage (AT&T), the iPhone had a 77% share of smartphone activations last quarter.
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.
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.
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.
Your timeline is a bit off. Google acquired Android before Schmidt was appointed to Apple's Board of Directors. Apple was certainly aware that Google had plans to enter the mobile industry.
Yes, you are missing most of the experience. Go look at one in person. Hold it in your hands. Watch a video. Listen to a .flac through some good headphones.
Or continue to clutch your plastic-cased iPhone and deny that anything else could compare.
I am still amazed that this guy hasn't been sued by Apple.
I'm still amazed that some people don't get why his being on the board for a couple of months before the iPhone came out, didn't matter:
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.
They didn't have to have anyone on Apple's board of directors to do that. All they had to do was buy one from a store.
Heck, Microsoft had been making phones and tablets for years, and suddenly Apple jumped into the same markets? OMG, Apple must've had a mole on Microsoft's board!!!
I am still amazed that this guy hasn't been sued by Apple.
Perhaps he has not being sued because even Apple thinks that he has not done anything ilegal?
Ethical schmethical
Humans cannot be tamed by that.
There will always be a few who will push the envelope of anything because they can. If it's possible humans will try it.
Heart transplants and all other transplants from dead people, ethical?
We got over that quickly by calling them donors. Stem cells, cloning sheep.
(There will be an attempt to do that with a human)
Already there are experiments with implanting chips into blind people to make them see. Don't follow what stage that is at.
By 2100 I can envision people wearing eyePhones in their heads.
Anybody who does will get sued for trademark infringement by Apple. Apple cannot be the R&D department for the entire industry.
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.