Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Android Success Story

It is well known, the union is strength. Similarly the alignment of the PC manufacturers behind the standard Windows platform that has assured its hegemony over the whole computer, many predicted that the scenario happen again with Android and iPhone. In fact, Android's market share exceeded that of the iPhone. But is limited to these percentages would give a very fragmented image of the landscape because the deal is actually quite different from that between OS X to Windows. Undoubtedly, the winner of the Mac-PC war was Microsoft. From the perspective of manufacturers, however, the picture is somewhat more mixed. PC manufacturers have indeed been terribly dependent on Microsoft, and they were not able to differentiate the level of the operating system or its integration with their equipment, they have engaged in a war prices that has left them bloodless.

Morality, the Mac in 2010 was 7% market share, but 35% of gross profits in the industry. Given a choice, Apple's position in the PC market is much more enviable than that of HP, however, the world leader in units sold. To look more closely at this top of the podium is more of honor than an actual performance, in reality it is a small consolation if the goal is to earn the most money possible. The market share does dominate financially if sales volumes offset the low margins, and it's a delicate balance to achieve the knowledge that lower margins may contribute to a larger volume. In fact, if Microsoft knew so well to succeed at the game, it's the height of the market share of the Windows platform, and a feature peculiar to creative works on the margin: their production costs are fixed, unlike the material. Once the software is developed, it is no longer enough to sell a certain number of copies to break even, all subsequent sales inexorably increasing the profit margin. Ironically, Microsoft has hammered his concept of the "Apple tax" even though its margin is Windows ... 85%. We know the economic model of Android has nothing in common with that of Windows, since Google's mobile OS is free. The Mountain View Company has cost profitable development of Android on the display of advertisements that it can carry through its services, provided that the partners remain in the version of Android comes with their Smartphones. But despite the higher market share of Android, Google still earns more money with iOS, since by his own two-thirds of it deals with requests moving from the Apple OS. From the perspective of manufacturers, the contrast is even greater: alone Apple assumes 52% of profits in the mobile industry, all manufacturers and all types of phones combined, while Nokia sells more devices that her. In short, when one pulled a Microsoft financial domination of the market share of Windows, the world mobile market dominance by Android does not figure to medal in chocolate or Google or manufacturers are not better off for the same. But beyond the sole economic data, market share is still crucial when it comes to platform: it guarantees continuity and an ecosystem. Over a given platform will appeal to users, it will be more likely to attract developers who will benefit from this pool, leading to a virtuous circle because in return, a greater number of applications attract more users. In turn, the investment of users in a platform, purchasing software, makes it less likely to change dairy, and can be a captive market: it is the powerful tool that Windows was able to sit hegemony. The different forms of mobile (report, size and definition of the screen, physical keyboard or not, graphics capabilities, etc.) and various versions of Android in the wild are now completely dilute the platform, far from simplifying the work developers by enabling them with a single development to address a homogeneous population, instead make their task more difficult. They need to choose the lowest common denominator, or limit compatibility to a limited number of devices. If we can make the same observations in terms of material on the different generations of iPhone, iPod touch and iPad, changes are still less drastic than Android. But it is in software that the difference becomes obvious: the manufacturers have little incentive to invest to provide updates for Android to customers, number of devices are hopelessly behind schedule, even though the iPhone 3G, yet two years old and a half, runs smoothly on the latest version of IOS and enables developers to build on its recent API. Tasted Michael made a telling summary in the following table: while each of the iPhone models to exploit the latest version of IOS into force three years after its placing on the market, some Smartphones are sold with no less than two versions behind Android, others have not received any update, and none of the 18 Smartphones has been identified to date on the entire period.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.