SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Farhad Manjoo writes in the NYT that with over one billion devices sold in 2014 Android is the most popular operating system in the world by far, but that doesn't mean it's a financial success for Google. Apple vacuumed up nearly 90 percent of the profits in the smartphone business which prompts a troubling question for Android and for Google: How will the search company — or anyone else, for that matter — ever make much money from Android. First the good news: The fact that Google does not charge for Android, and that few phone manufacturers are extracting much of a profit from Android devices, means that much of the globe now enjoys decent smartphones and online services for low prices. But while Google makes most of its revenue from advertising, Android has so far been an ad dud compared with Apple's iOS, whose users tend to have more money and spend a lot more time on their phones (and are, thus, more valuable to advertisers). Because Google pays billions to Apple to make its search engine the default search provider for iOS devices, the company collects much more from ads placed on Apple devices than from ads on Android devices.
The final threat for Google's Android may be the most pernicious: What if a significant number of the people who adopted Android as their first smartphone move on to something else as they become power users? In Apple's last two earnings calls, Tim Cook reported that the "majority" of those who switched to iPhone had owned a smartphone running Android. Apple has not specified the rate of switching, but a survey found that 16 percent of people who bought the latest iPhones previously owned Android devices; in China, that rate was 29 percent. For Google, this may not be terrible news in the short run. If Google already makes more from ads on iOS than Android, growth in iOS might actually be good for Google's bottom line. Still, in the long run, the rise of Android switching sets up a terrible path for Google — losing the high-end of the smartphone market to the iPhone, while the low end is under greater threat from noncooperative Android players like Cyanogen which has a chance to snag as many as 1 billion handsets. Android has always been a tricky strategy concludes Manjoo; now, after finding huge success, it seems only to be getting even trickier.
[Editor's Comment: Original Submission]
(Score: 2) by arslan on Friday May 29 2015, @02:49AM
Yea the term means a different thing here, they'll probably patent it at some point and claim they invented it.
If iPhones are entry level devices, how come I can't afford it and paid half the price for a flagship Android from a Korean brand?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Friday May 29 2015, @03:17AM
If you are old enough to remember, "If he's an idiot I send him to the Mac Store." as a tagline (heck, if you even remember taglines) then you understand the idea here. Entry level is meant as no knowledge and usually a strong implication of a desire to avoid acquiring any. In other words if you recommend they buy anything but the Apple (which you are careful to make clear you don't actually own because you are a power user) it means they will be your new bestest friend for years as you provide free tech support for the product "you recommended" and you will never be allowed to forget the fact you recommended it. Whereas if they buy the Apple you can say, "Don't know, don't have one. But aren't they the computers for idiots? Surely you can figure it out because you aren't an idiot... right?" In the case of an iPhone you can even say "Paris Hilton figured her's out, surely you can."
(Score: 2) by arslan on Friday May 29 2015, @04:29AM
Ah.. he meant entry level from a usability point of view. I was thinking cost.. which is what people normally mean from where I come from. No wonder the post read oddly..
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Friday May 29 2015, @09:28AM
It certainly has been a long running joke. "Wow, hold on professor! TWO mouse buttons?!?"
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)