What if Apple really opened up the iPhone?
Will Android beat iPhone?
Speaking yesterday at the Emerging Communications Conference at the Computer History Museum in Silicon Valley, Rich Miner, Google group manager for mobile platforms, predicted that sales of Android-based devices will outpace those of the iPhone.
In other words, the iPhone will be unlike the iPod-iTunes combo when it comes to dominating a market.
Could there be an HTC iPhone?
Miner uses the Microsoft licensing and open-source models to make his case. "When you have devices out there from Motorola, HTC, Samsung, and so on, there's a much larger potential market on Android than for the iPhone," Miner said.
In other words, having a mostly closed device (except to the iPhone hackers)--with one manufacturer and one carrier per country, as well as applications tied to the Mac OS--is not a formula for creating massive demand. Apple will sell in the tens of millions in a market for smart communications devices that is in the billions.
It's the same dilemma Apple has faced over the years. Should the Mac OS be licensed to any reasonably qualified manufacturer? Clearly, Steve Jobs has proven that he can create a great PC business with 5 percent market share.
The Open Handset Alliance contingent of Google's Android is really going after the business of Microsoft, Research In Motion, and Symbian with its open-source mobile-software stack and applications platform, which makes Miner's remarks about the iPhone unsurprising.
Any one of the big players can beat the iPhone in market share, if Apple continues with its proprietary approach.
What if Apple does free the iPhone software and touch technology? Would it become the dominant mobile-device operating system and application platform? Talk among yourselves.
Dan Farber is editor in chief of CBS Interactive News, which includes CBSNews.com and CNET News. He has more than 25 years of experience as an editor and journalist covering technology. E-mail Dan.
<sarcasm>
Yea, because we know how much that helped plays for sure devices outsell iPods. Yea, because we know how much that helped plays for sure music stores outsell iTunes. Yea, because it really makes a lot more sense drawing analogies between Google's smart phone now and the PC industry 20 years ago, than it does drawing analogies between Google's smart phone and the current smart phone and MP3 player market. Yea.
</end sarcasm>
The only things users care about are: (1) features/design and (2) add-on applications.
The iPhone is superbly well designed, and now with the SDK will soon have 1000's of 3rd party applications. Users don't give a crap about "open" or "closed" or whatever religion you want to peddle. And they don't give a crap whether it is "MacOS-based" or "Linux-based" or "Windows Mobile-based" etc.
Linux is "open" and after over 15 years still has neglible dekstop market share. Users could give a crap about "open" -- the market for add-on apps is COMPLETELY open, which is the only thing that matters.
And I can guarantee that no loose consortium of hackers is going to make anywhere near as nice and integrated a device as the iPhone -- just look at virtually all "open source" software and platforms -- it is "copyhackware" that is a hodge-podge of copying of various things from various platforms.
What hardware inside a Mac was designed and built by Apple?
Very true. However, Apple's dominance in digital media and their flexible content ecosystem will play a large role. Most people purchased the iPhone for it's audio/video capabilities. It seems that it's being forced into the 'smart phone' category by the market.
Rent or purchase then move around: HDTV > computer > iPod > iPhone.. and back again. That's the real genius in my opinion.
If Android is moderately successful it will be on ten times as many devices as the iPhone. If it really catches on it will be more like a hundred or a thousand times as many.
So, Apple decides to enter the mobile market. A market of billions of handsets a year. When I look at that market I see Motorola, Nokia, LG, Sony Ericsson, Samsung, RIM, Palm as manufacturers of mobile phones. Big players no doubt but when you look at their line-up we see that each of them has at least 10 models out there. And each year they release 10 new models each. So I would like to compare any one of these models and see if they have sold as many units as the iPhone has in less than a year! Close to 5 million iPhones... I very much doubt that any one model of beforementioned manufacturers comes even close.
And besides, with Apple's business model they don't need to dominate the market because they get more return on investment with one model than any other mobile phone maker gets for all their models combined. And as with computers it is all about the software for iPhone. It has set a new standard for mobile phones and regardless of Android it will remain the standard that Android-phones must follow... just as Microsoft followed the Mac OS. Only, like with Microsoft the Android-software for mobile phones will just never quite get it right.
why would an architect form a committee to help it design it's next marvel? that's what opening the iphone platform means. apple and google have different business and cultural motivations. that's why they don't really compete. more often than not they complement. here will be times when they intersect, but seldom will they butt heads.
apple does not lust for your market share, they just pursue you joy.
Off the top of my head, the Razr sold about, what, 50 million in two years?
"What if Apple does free the iPhone software and touch technology? Would it become the dominant mobile-device operating system and application platform?"
In a nutshell: yes. I think eople who want th functionality of more advanced phones than the iPhone, but love the UI (or the coolness factor of the Apple brand) would flock to a more sophisticated phone with the Apple UI. As a previous person said, "Apple isn't a software company." Not yet. But what if they wanted to be? Wouldn't that be a great long-term strategic play? If Apple could leverage its fan base, blue chip brand, and technology platform to launch a mobile (or other) software line, I think it could be a highly successful endeavor.
But they have to get away from the current Apple mentality first.
Second, Apple IS a software company. Anyone who doesn't see that should look a little better. Apple has always been about software. Are there phones more advanced than iPhone? Though that will remain a matter of taste, I strongly suggest to take a second look. At the moment there is no mobile phone software more advanced than iPhone's. Apple is just very smart to first reel in the consumers and then move on to businesses. Do you really think Apple wasn't capable of integrating Exchange right from the start? If they really wanted they could have blown RIM, Palm and all other smartphone manufacturers right out of the water. But Apple doesn't want to blow them out of the water. Apple wants as many people on the iPhone as possible and for that you have to tackle the consumer market before the business market.
Cheers!
One thing Apple haters or Win fanbois don't get. Due to large Windows market share, most Apple users have more then enough experience using Windows and other popular platforms. It's not hype, it's fact; Apple products are easier to use and facilitate making the most out of a product without the 'tech' getting in the way.
The same for the iPhone. If Apple opened up the iPhone software it would need to be tightly controlled to create the same user experience. This would defeat the purpose of being open.
Apple has 3% of the PC Market. Yet it has 33% of Microsoft's revenues and 25% of Microsoft's profits. Further, Apple's retail stores are the most profitable retail stores in the world per square foot. This means Apple is a huge money making machine. This is what counts.
Apple does very very well with the small marketshare it has. Apple aims for getting the cream-of-the-crop consumers who are willing to spend more. Then when the cachet of their product is created, most everyone else will lust for an Apple product.
Motorola may sell more Razrs than Apple sells iPhones, but Apple has a far more profitable business than Motorola. In fact, Motorola has to seriously think about quitting the cell phone business since they are getting killed. Palm, likewise, is getting killed in the market. Their profits are certainly not up to the billions the iPhone will be making Apple.
Apple creates products that so many people lust after and are willing to pay a higher price for because Apple choses to make the best product it can in any category. Choosing to be the best of any market means you are not going to commoditize the product as Google is seeking, or as Microsoft is seeking, or as Linux fans are choosing.
Since creating the best leads to high profits, Apple is on the right track.
That comment got me thinking (can you tell it's a productive day at work?). It seems people take for granted that Apple is on the wave to a ton of $ with its product line. But looking at the history of these companies reminds me of how volatile the tech industry is, and how companies, including Apple, need to continually innovate and adapt.
What company lost over $1B in FY1997? Apple. They then turned things around and made $329M in 1999. Down to $57M in 2003. Now up to $3.5B in 2007. Wacky, huh?
And Motorola, getting killed... They made $4.5B in 2005 (more than Apple now). 2007? Lost $49M.
Look at Nokia, another handset manufacturer, and the mobile business alone made 5.4B Euros.
So Apple may be on the right track for now...but for how long? They don't have a steady track record - it's a rare thing in this industry - so it'll be interesting to see what the corporate strategy is like 3-5 years from now.
Motorola derives significant revenue (but maybe not profit?) from their cell phone lines. But you can't attribute those results you quote strictly to RAZR (or KRZR or whatever phone line). I've not studied Motorola's earnings reports, so I don't know if they break out financials by business unit (I don't know if Apple does either, they tout sales figures but sales figures != profitability disclosure).
Everything I just said for Motorola goes for Nokia - they have businesses outside of phones, albeit not nearly as large.
At the end of the day - I agree w/ your uber point - Apple has had a tumultious history - but they've also made big bets. When you don't have a monopoly you have to do that - innovate or die.
instead of a device, application or OS-centric strategy, apple continues to hammer on the 3 steps to action design in its products as seen on a network platform (essentially you should be able to get to what you want to do in 3 or less steps) ... the network it has developed to support particular businesses, starting with itunes, is a great testament to format-independence.
with more bandwidth the only real barrier is to match search with transactional activities. google, msft and others including transaction providers and telecom/isp will then be forced to compete for the trust of the consumer (hopefully) and the likely demand for efficiency of getting what you want when you want it.
it is the one area for which apple's deal with at&t is more of a bridge to pricing aesthetics and functionality over simplistic time and data pricing. still a way to go but ... great start and a great time to see the transition to true mobility. wish we were close to japan's 100 Mbs at 20 bucks/month but that is a political issue that needs attention.
that being said, i abhor the efforts by apple and google and others who are forcing the patent reform act through congress instead of opening the debate to the american public for good or bad, akin to the napster debate. this patent reform does nothing to address the issues it purports to solve and undermines the system that proponents benefitted greatly from.
hopefully some of that debate will receive a fair hearing before the senate pushes through the bill (including billions of dollars in payments to data treasury for large banks infringing its patents -- the patents were upheld after re-exam -- amendment 14 of the patent reform act). americans benefit from a fair system of intellectual property and no industry should be able to carve out an industrial policy for itself.
dan - great open post!
-
by john55440
March 18, 2008 8:02 AM PDT
- iPhone gets all the media hype, but according to IDC, Nokia sold 437.1 million phones last year alone.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 21 Comments >>