by Pablo Carlier.
MIT Technology Review: “In 2009 Microsoft’s software was on 90%of all computing devices (PCs, phones, tablets). Today, only on 23% of devices sold”.
It happened without them noticing, but Microsoft lost its empire overnight. Mobile, consumerization of IT and Cloud apps are to blame.
I argued a couple of months ago that Android could well not exist, and the picture would not change much. It served as a strong brand for Samsung’s recognition, but now that the market sees the value in Samsung itself, its hardware, its ecosystem, Android is a second rate player. Actually, people don’t buy and Android phone from Samsung, they buy a Samsung phone that runs Android Apps, interacts with Samsung TVs, looks good and is cheaper than an iPhone.
That is why Google builds its own hardware now. And Microsoft. Vertically integrated has won.
Look How Many Competitors Apple Has Destroyed In Just The Last Year Alone
Look at this wonderful chart by market research firm VisionMobile, comparing shipping volumes, revenues and profits of the mobile industry from Q1 2011 to Q1 2012
Full Story: CultofMac
Around a month ago I suggested HP should drop their horrendous and super-confusing naming conventions (HP Spectre Envy Turbo XT HD) and simplify their laptop lineup and branding. Here’s what I believed HP should do:
Listen HP, here you go:
- The HP One - entry level, super portable.
- The HP Plus - midrange 15” all-around power.
- The HP Max - powerful and light top-of-the-line.
It seems it’s Apple who’s done exactly that. They have:
Who would have thought…
That’s it. I said it. There is no such thing as a war between Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android.
There is a war indeed between Apple, Samsung, HTC, Nokia, RIM, Motorola etc., for the profits in the handset space. Apple controls 73% of those profits.
There is also a war for the mobile ads revenue between platforms (iOS and Android mainly) to generate as much money from advertising as possible. Apparently, iOS quadruples the advertising revenue for Google that Android brings.
What can we extract from these facts?
Conclusion 1: Apple is eating almost all the money, and Samsung is reaping the leftovers of the cake, with regards to mobile phone profits. Basically everyone else is bleeding money quarter after quarter. This game is about making money, not about unit sales or other stuff. No war to be seen between Android and Apple here. Android is a platform for advertising created by Google, it does not play this game.
Conclusion 2: In the mobile advertising space, Google is the big fish, and it makes much more money from iOS than it does from Android. Interesting, but still no war here. This is a game about making the most money from ad prints. Sheer volume is meaningful here, as are user habits, willingness to purchase online services and more. Google does not care which phone you use, as long as the advertising revenue goes to their pocket. Android and iOS are not competing here. Android brings the sheer volume, iOS brings the revenue-per-user. Win-win.
Who is losing?
I dare say Apple wins big hardware money, Google wins advertising money, Samsung wins little hardware money. Everyone else loses money everywhere.
Android could really not exist: it has a strong userbase, but it really does not mean much for anybody. Samsung makes very good hardware that would sell equally well with their own Bada OS. Google makes tons of ad money from iOS, and it would make money from every other platform in the world… Even its own, that loses them money every quarter. Apple is generating profits at the stunning pace of $128 million a day. No real impact from Android here.
There really is no war. Where the dollars are, they are well controlled by Apple, Google and somewhat Samsung. Android just happens to have become the Symbian of the 2010’s: large user count, almost irrelevant financially for everyone. And it seems everybody’s happy this way.
Let there be love.
"
Just two years after we shipped the initial iPad, we sold 67 million.
It took us 24 years to sell that many Macs, and five years for that many iPods, and over three years for that many iPhones.
"Tim Cook, Apple CEO.
(Source: daringfireball.net)
Brian Ford hits the nail in the head (emphasis is mine):
Oh, right. This is what I’m recalling:
Palm CEO Ed Colligan, circa 2006:
Responding to questions from New York Times correspondent John Markoff at a Churchill Club breakfast gathering Thursday morning, Colligan laughed off the idea that any company — including the wildly popular Apple Computer — could easily win customers in the finicky smart-phone sector.
“We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone,” he said. “PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.”
No. They just stormed in and passed everyone else, ate their lunch, and kicked them out of business.
(Source: daringfireball.net)
"Kaufman Bros. has predicted the “iSlate,” (…) to sell a million units per quarter. Supply chain sources indicated that Apple hopes to build 5 million units in the first year of production. The company has reiterated its price target of $253 for AAPL stock."
AppleInsider on January 2010. What a difference two years make.
15 million iPads sold in Q1. AAPL almost at $500. One Pad to rule them all.
Following up to the previous post, it is really amusing to see how no one saw this disruption. It has taken iPad less than two years to become the #1 personal computer in the world.
