The Problem with iPhone Killers

By MG Siegler

Here we are again. The hype leading up to a new mobile device is reaching a fever pitch. Motorola’s Droid sounds, looks, and by some accounts, is impressive. As such, everyone’s favorite superlative is being thrown out there once again: “iPhone killer.” Of course, we’ve heard this before — maybe a dozen times. The BlackBerry Storm was the iPhone killer, the Palm Pre was the iPhone killer, the G2, etc. Not only does the iPhone still survive, it thrives. Why?

The answer is easy, but requires some explanation. Fundamentally, the problem with most iPhone killers is that they’re not actually trying to kill the iPhone. They, as devices, may think they are, but most of them are playing a different game because of the OSes they run, and the companies behind them. One way to think about it is to compare smartphones and more precisely, their OSes, to religion (which we’ve done before). This is especially apt since the nickname for the iPhone is the “Jesus Phone.”

In a religious sense, the iPhone is a monotheistic religion. Basically, its OS believes in one device. Yes, I know there is the iPod touch, as well as variations of the iPhone (original, 3G, 3GS), but these are essentially all the same device with essentially the same hardware, just boosted specs. Meanwhile, Android, Windows Mobile, BlackBerry, Symbian, etc. are all polytheists. But “pagans,” while perhaps not exactly right, is a cooler term, so let’s go with that. All of these other mobile OSes are pagans. They answer to many devices, their “gods.”

Now, I’m not saying that the pagan approach is a bad one, I’m simply saying that trying to kill a monotheist device with a pagan OS is going to be very hard. The problem is that none of these pagan OSes have that one, single device that they can use to help spread their doctrine to the masses. They may put more faith in one device at any given time (which Android is already doing with Droid), but ultimately, their allegiance lies with the many other devices under their OS umbrella as well. The pagan church (in the Android case, Google), would be unwise to play favorites because it would undermine the ultimate goal: To be on as many devices as possible.

And I think Google (GOOG) realizes that. While they apparently have had quite a large hand in helping with Droid, it’s Motorola (MOT) and Verizon that are hyping it big time. But I think Google knows that the Droid isn’t an iPhone killer. Instead, it’s likely the best device they have so far to kill their real competitors: Symbian and especially Windows Mobile. Repeat after me: Android is trying to kill Windows Mobile, not the iPhone.

Another popular way to think about this is the PC (Windows) versus Mac history. Essentially, early on in the history of personal computing, the Mac was king. But then Microsoft (MSFT) came along with an OS that could run on devices from multiple manufacturers, quantity ruled the day, and the rest is history. Android, Windows Mobile, etc are often associated with taking this approach in the mobile battleground.

But things are different now. One could argue that there was a lot of other things going on inside Apple (AAPL) in the 1980s that led to the rise of Microsoft (and, of course, the ouster of Steve Jobs). Since then, Apple, for lack of a better phrase, has gotten its shit together (and brought Jobs back). With the iPhone — meaning the combination of the hardware, the software, and maybe most importantly, the App Store — Apple has created an ecosystem that is fueling itself.

Microsoft, meanwhile, has been trying the same “quantity” approach in the mobile space with Windows Mobile for years now. For a while, it was working fairly well, but that was mostly due to a lack of competition in what was still a very small market. Now, they’re bleeding market share in the space, and the future looks grim. Again, not so much because of the iPhone (which is hurting it short term), but because of Windows Mobile’s true competitor: Android.

Not only is Android open source, but it’s free. Windows Mobile, on the other hand, is still ridiculously charging manufacturers upwards of $25 to use their sub-par OS. Their strategy seems two pronged at this point: 1) Try to leverage the Windows PC brand as much as possible and convince users that Windows Mobile tied to Windows itself create the best environment for mobile. 2) Get out Windows Mobile 7, an entirely new OS, as quickly as possible.

The problem for Microsoft (again, for Microsoft, not Apple) is that Android now has real traction with manufacturers and a massive amount of devices about to hit (including Droid) should push Windows Mobile behind Android in the hearts and minds of the public. And while it’s still smaller in market share, that could change as well much sooner than Microsoft would like to admit.

Let me be clear: I think it’s pretty likely that eventually Android will be bigger than the iPhone worldwide. Again, it’s a different game. It’s monotheist versus the pagans. It’s Mac versus PC. Even if and when Apple breaks its AT&T (T) exclusivity in the U.S. there will still basically be only one device. Android will have dozens of devices. And even more in other parts of the world. But the iPhone will continue to survive and even thrive, just like the Mac is right now.

By offering one device, Apple is accepting a trade-off: They’re sacrificing quantity for quality. Apple has complete control over its device (and probably too much with regard to the App Store), and because of that, it can build something that melds software and hardware like none of its pagan counterparts can.

In fact, the closest one to doing this is Palm (PALM) with the Pre. But the Pre is not in the iPhone’s class yet (it’s too slow), and Palm is already getting ready to release another device. And they’re talking about more after than. It’s a more confined pagan religion, but its still pagan. Developers won’t be sure which device they’re developing for, etc.

Apple could go that way too someday. Since the iPhone’s launch, there have been whispers of an “iPhone mini,” but that hasn’t happened yet. More likely in the short term is that Apple’s tablet device may run some variation of the iPhone OS, which would obviously require some changes. But in the smartphone space, there will still be the one device.

And while on the face of it, it may not seem like it, that’s compelling to a lot of people. (Keep It Simple, Stupid and all that.) When you’re forced to choose between dozens of devices with dozens of different specs, it can be daunting for a consumer. With the iPhone, they know what they’re getting. And developers know what they’re getting too. They know they apps will run great on the iPhone because they were able to test it on the device rather than having to buy and test it on dozens of devices.

It’s about controlling the user experience. Whether you agree or disagree with that approach, you have to admit that Apple is very good at it.

Speaking of developers, lest you think any of the pagan smartphone makers will be able to convert iPhone users en masse, there’s a huge point of faith for sticking with the iPhone: Nearly 100,000 applications and 2 billion app downloads. While many people talk about the former being a lure for new users (which it obviously, absolutely is) the 2 billion number is the key for users staying around. Plenty of people have already invested hundreds of dollars in apps which only work on the iPhone. Convincing those people to switch to a Droid or a BlackBerry is going to be difficult. Instead, when they upgrade, they’re likely to pick a device that those apps still work with: A new iPhone.

That’s why this is not about killing the iPhone. Whispers are starting again about a “Google Phone” — that is, hardware developed (or at least entirely dictated) by Google. During the Web 2.0 Summit, Google co-founder Sergey Brin admitted that Google works more closely on some hardware for Android than others, but that’s not enough to make an iPhone killer. If Google (or Microsoft, for that matter) decides to put all of its support (and marketing support) behind one phone, let me know, then we can talk.

But supposedly, even Droid will be a series of phones. Again, the first one looks great. And it could be a real killer. But only because it runs Android, which could be a Windows Mobile killer.

[photos: Miramax, flickr/flywood, Apple]

Original post

Comments

[CGP:]

Should we say Druid instead of Droid?

Dead on analysis; the iPhone "killer' talk is really only about a beauty pageant - not really important in the grand scheme of things. iPhone isn't even #1 in market share but has that perception because you could say it leads in mindshare.

Apple has basically just locked in their loyal following, the story going forward is about the much larger population of agnostics and growth going forward. This is just another iteration of the 80's/90's desktop battle except it's now about mobile and Google is replacing Microsoft. There's a lot more to come and we won't even reach a big milestone until we have a critical level of nationwide LTE/WiMax coverage.

Oct 26 10:51 AM

[Stephen Col...:]

The App store is a moat. So is iTunes. Great post!

Oct 26 10:55 AM

[CGP:]

BTW if Palm doesn't run out of money (or backing) I think they still have a shot. Unfortunately for them they're starting to look more like a longshot and need to step up to the plate.

Oct 26 10:56 AM

[shankhill:]

Interesting point of view. I have chosen iPhone (2 for me, 1 for my wife) because there really is no learning curve. I used a Palm/Motorola phone for years, and even at the end, I still had to look up functions. In a nutshell, the Palm was hard to learn and use, and the iPhone is not. If a new gee-whiz phone came out from someone else, I would not switch, because I am not inclined to re-learn the functions of a different phone. Incidentally, this also applies to my Mac computers.

Oct 26 11:00 AM

[brewer:]

Good article that does go a long way toward explaining some basic differences in approach. I get tired of everything being an iPod Killer or iPhone Killer.

As for the computer market, remember, there used to be MANY different types of computers. The Mac was the ONLY one Microsoft was never able to 'Kill' and they one they copied relentlessly (not just the Mac but also the Apple II in it's day.) That ought to tell you something, even if you never used a Mac before and really don't understand why anyone would, or you think they are just for 'graphic artists' or the Apple 'cult' or any other blatant attempt to pidgeonhole them.

Oct 26 11:02 AM

[BobD:]

Excellent article that actually explains the real attractiveness of Apple. Few non-Apple owners seem to understand what is going on. Apple is making their OS X the common thread to everything electronic. I just boot up my iMac and my OS, apps, iPod, and IPhone are updated. Everything works seamlessly - no other manufacturers to chase - no system crashes - no problems, ever. Soon my entertainment system in my home and other things we

Oct 26 12:12 PM

[jmmx:]

@CGP
You say: "Apple has basically just locked in their loyal following..."

What planet are you living on? Most iPhone and iPod owners are on Windows computers not Macs. If you want to argue that anyone who buys an iPod/phone automatically falls into the category "their loyal following" then your argument is tautological and thereby tells us nothing.

In fact, iPhone arguably owns the largest share of the smartphone market if you define smartphone as a cell phone device designed to provide a realistic access to the internet. (I.E. a window large enough to do more than trivial tasks). This fact is verified by the enormous share of mobile web browsing owned by iPhone/Touch.

In light of this, your comments are ridiculous.

Oct 26 04:18 PM

[tunaman4u2:]

Take AAPL out of the conversation & lets look at MOT... its the best phone the company has had in years... so likely the upside for investing in MOT thats putting out a "good" product on the best wireless network that doesn't have an Iphone sounds like a potential decent investment

Oct 26 05:35 PM

[Moon Kil Woong:]

Dead on analysis: Why go after a 6% of the market with a loyal following. Even so, the phone industry must adapt or die. If anyone MOT which once dominated this industry should know that. They have been laggards for decades. Perhaps they've seen the light.

Maybe it's NOK's time to get the spanking it deserves for refusing to change their OS. Clinging to the past in the mobile phone industry relegates you to the trash bin. I support MOT, Samsung, Apple, and Palm for trying to add some innovation to an increasingly stagnant mobile phone industry.

Oct 27 06:48 AM

[robinjoe:]

From what I gather from MOT employees, it is a sick company culture. Apple is suppose to be a great place to work. Tremendously talented people like me are the ones who create great products and we work wherever we want. So are we going to work at backstabbing hellholes or great places? MOT is doomed until they change their culture and Apple will thrive as long as they keep their culture.

Oct 27 08:25 AM

[TCK:]

Interesting the way the debate is framed using the phrase, "I-Phone Killers" considering Apple is currently in third place in the smart phone category worldwide. Any proliferation of Android would push Apple to number four.

Similar to the computer industry, Apple get positive press for going from low single digits to high single digits in market share. Currently Apple is only number one in market hype !

The real I-Phone killer is the ATT coverage network for which any other manufacturer would receive endless negative press.

Oct 27 08:30 AM

[J.Jordan:]

I agree the iPhone Killer is likely to be AT&T's coverage for now. The Droid will certainly be the most popular phone on Verizon, but until Palm, Blackberry, MSFT, Google or anyone else comes up with an App Store and 10s of 1,000s of Applications, the iPhone wins. This gives Apple a 1-year head start. Which at that time, who knows. iPhone on Verizon with multitasking, flash, and 190,000 applications.

Jordan
ereader.stackexchange.com

Oct 27 09:00 AM

[John O. McCoy:]

One of the best, most intelligent Apple articles I have ever read. I never did anything with a cell phone except dial and receive calls. The rest was simply too complicated and poorly explained. I did not have time for all the nonsense. With the iPhone, I understand it. It is truly intuitive. It is easy to use. I can type on the iPhone almost as fast as I can on my desktop. I have no interest in the pagan phones unless they pay me to use them. I have found the true religion - one that works, is reliable and which just keeps on getting better and better. (Even ATT is not much worse than most of the others. Apple will likely solve that problem.)

Oct 27 09:18 AM

[Tom B:]

This article proliferates a number of myths:

1)"Essentially, early on in the history of personal computing, the Mac was king. "
Distortion of history. The Mac was NEVER a majority platform. The Apple II (non-GUI; preceded the Mac) was pretty popular with CONSUMERS around the time of DOS. DOS was widely used in business; IBM used DOS. Apple made the first Mac in 1984; MSFT built a GUI on top of DOS in 1985-- and that's what businesses adopted because they were already familiar with DOS-- simple as that. Many consumers liked the idea of "borrowing" software from work and bought into Windows.

2) The "quantity" argument. The PC market "looks" like it offers lots of "choice". In fact, the differences between a Dell and an HP are minimal--basically the same parts. If you "build" a PC, you can get more choices on hard drive size and brand, and on video card. The problem is, no matter what you pick (unless you are technically inclined and go LINUX), if you buy a PC, you are stuck with an inconvenient, annoying, 3rd rate OS-- Windows. What kind of "choice" is that? Quality platforms, past and present (Mac, Sun, SGI, Amiga, Palm in its earliest days) make the "whole widget"-- hardware and software. In insures everything has the best chance of working together. And there's more choice among Mac that PC people think. You have a few configuration choices at the Apple store, but, beyond that, you can install more memory or a different hard drive yourself, if you want- I've done it.

With the iPhone, there's basically a limited handful of hardware options, but enormous variation in capabilities, because of the software upgradability and 3rd party apps.

3) the religious metaphor is unoriginal and tiresome. People use Macs because they WORK WELL. If you do work more complex than simple word process, a Mac is probably what you should use: graphics artists; scientists, programmers. About half the people coming to Apple stores are new Apple users-- not "returning cultists". Most iPhone users are on Windows (at least, they are NOW...). This all makes sense in view of the fact the Mac is the minority platform for largely HISTORIC, no longer APPLICABLE reasons (see point 1). In fact, going forward, Apple looks good: the MSFT Zune has not caught on; WinMo is a wreck-- and DIFFERENT from Zune OS AND Windows; MSFT can't seem to write a modern OS (Win 7 is still not UNIX-based-- Apple got to UNIX 10 years ago); computing is more and more in the platform-agnostic "cloud"; and (on the phone issue again) Google Droid is on a mess of different hardware.

Oct 27 09:50 AM

[hcm:]

Great analysis. I live in a Mac environment - iEverything all around but, if Google develops a mobile phone, I'll get it.

Oct 27 10:00 AM

[evanz:]

This whole story misses the point - by a country mile. The real story here is Android. Android is going to be to the smartphone space what Windows was to the PC market. The OS is the cheese, and Android will take the largest bite.

Oct 27 11:12 AM

[Troy Jensen:]

Outstanding article, I actually blogged those very words just a few days ago...Droid is NOT the "iPhone Killer." My ad agency experience made me cringe when I saw the broadcast spot (iDon't...etc etc). Classic example of creative run amok, with either bad strategic direction from the agency or the client (Motorola/Verizon, Google did not run those spots) - wrong demo targeted, generation of hype factor with the tease leaves the viewer with no idea who in the world the brand was for...and tactical decision to attack the iPhone was stunningly inept.

My blog posting, if interested...interesti... despite my criticiscm, and despite being a DEVOUT Apple fan, I am giving Droid a try when it launches, for one reason, as I tell my story in the posting - DROPPED CALLS. I can't take the dropped calls anymore.

seekingalpha.com/insta...

Oct 27 11:15 AM

[Fremont Rea...:]

Remember Apple has a ton of ipoders to conver to iPhones. Any new competing device (aka Palm Pre) can't give assurance that they'll be able to access their music. Fortunately for Blackberry and others iTunes compatibility isn't a must for everyone for now.

Oct 27 11:29 AM

[joe in miami:]

Even Verizon's network would buckle under the iPhone's data usage. Nobody anticipated the iPhone adoption rate nor the heavy data traffic from people actually using their cell phones on the internet. Prior to the iPhone, no one bothered surfing the web.

Good luck with your Droid.


On Oct 27 11:15 AM Troy Jensen wrote:

> Outstanding article, I actually blogged those very words just a few
> days ago...Droid is NOT the "iPhone Killer." My ad agency experience
> made me cringe when I saw the broadcast spot (iDon't...etc etc).
> Classic example of creative run amok, with either bad strategic direction
> from the agency or the client (Motorola/Verizon, Google did not run
> those spots) - wrong demo targeted, generation of hype factor with
> the tease leaves the viewer with no idea who in the world the brand
> was for...and tactical decision to attack the iPhone was stunningly
> inept.
>
> My blog posting, if interested...interesti... despite my criticiscm,
> and despite being a DEVOUT Apple fan, I am giving Droid a try when
> it launches, for one reason, as I tell my story in the posting -
> DROPPED CALLS. I can't take the dropped calls anymore.
>
> seekingalpha.com/insta...

Oct 27 11:59 AM

[joes:]

Apple is winning because they are a more creative and better run company. They changed their name from Apple Computers to Apple because rather than compete for low cost market share with $300 servers running XP they extending computing through the mobile environment, first the iPod and then the iPhone.

Windows 7 isn't UNIX, whcih in case it isn't clear is the only operating system we need, Mac proved that also.

Oct 27 12:15 PM

[HH123:]

There is no iPhone Killer but the "Me too" products will eventually kill Apple's profit margin on iPhone. RAZR was the iPhone 5 years ago. Where is it today? The key for all Cell Phone makers, and all Technology companies in general, is to keep innovating. One product hit won't last. Music store and App Store are not moats. Competitors already launched similar services. It will take time, but they will eventually catch up. Again, the key to success for Apple and other Technology companies is to keep innovating. There is no other "moat" in the hyper competitive Tech world.

Oct 27 01:05 PM

[Tom B:]

"RAZR was the iPhone 5 years ago."

I had two friends who had RAZR's; they both hated them. Like Peter Lynch, I believe first hand exposure to products can really help inform buying decisions. I'm not SURPRISED the Palm RAZR sucked; I owned an early Palm and two later iterations. Basically, the quality (in terms of OS bugginess) went to poo very quickly after a VERY promising start-- and they self-destructed by licensing the OS to other vendors; cannibalized their own market.

BTW: When Apple launches a new product, EVEN THOUGH I'm a fan, with lots of confidence in the company, as an INVESTOR, I go to the Apple store and give it a spin, in person, to see if the reality matches the hype. I was convinced by the iPhone when Andy ikhnatko got to play with the prototype for 10 minutes at MacWorld-- the launch was still 6 months off-- and the PROTOTYPE was working well. I went to the Apple store that June and my 5-year-old was able to get on the web using the iPhone on display-- it was THAT intuitive.

" Music store and App Store are not moats. "

Moats aren't moats, if you are a great long jumper! They app store and music store DO present large barrier to entry to competitors, though. Amazon's music store, though good, did NOT hurt the iPod. Bing, though semi-decent, couldn't match Google. The Zune HD, though having OK hardware, had lousy software and no apps. With the iPhone, you get over the moat and there's still the castle wall to breach; redundant security!

I think the iPhone is still way low on the growth curve.


On Oct 27 01:05 PM HH123 wrote:

> There is no iPhone Killer but the "Me too" products will eventually
> kill Apple's profit margin on iPhone. RAZR was the iPhone 5 years
> ago. Where is it today? The key for all Cell Phone makers, and all
> Technology companies in general, is to keep innovating. One product
> hit won't last. Music store and App Store are not moats. Competitors
> already launched similar services. It will take time, but they will
> eventually catch up. Again, the key to success for Apple and other
> Technology companies is to keep innovating. There is no other "moat"
> in the hyper competitive Tech world.

Oct 27 01:38 PM

[GSlusher:]

Sorry, Tom B, but the Razr was made by Motorola. Palm had nothing to do with it. That rather negates your first paragraph.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

On Oct 27 01:38 PM Tom B wrote:

> I had two friends who had RAZR's; they both hated them. Like Peter
> Lynch, I believe first hand exposure to products can really help
> inform buying decisions. I'm not SURPRISED the Palm RAZR sucked;
> I owned an early Palm and two later iterations.

Oct 27 02:59 PM

[goldbug101:]

Apple will get off AT&T with the iPhone 4G as LTE will be the standard of every US Carrier except Sprint (WiMax).

Google knows it needs to be on as many different devices as possible and the OS battle is where they are spending their resources.

Only Apple can kill the iPhone if they ever have a lapse in judgment in the future regarding build quality or software integration.

Oct 27 03:27 PM

[TimothyI:]

Longtime Blackberry and PC/Windows user here. Just bought my first iPhone (3Gs). Using it was second nature after 2 days, and it continues to amaze me with its capabilities and usefulness. For the first time in years I'm going on a trip without a laptop.

I'm a gadget person, always have been and I'm not easily impressed. But the iPhone seems like it came from several years in the future. It has caused me for the first time to take a look at a Mac desktop.

Apple is doing something fundametally different from the others, and the religion metaphor is a good one. I used to be agnostic, but not any more.

Oct 27 03:57 PM

[rite aidsux:]

Where did you work before with such a vile work ethic, AstraZeneca? Keep on the rumor track, it will surely get you to the top!


On Oct 27 08:25 AM robinjoe wrote:

> From what I gather from MOT employees, it is a sick company culture.
> Apple is suppose to be a great place to work. Tremendously talented
> people like me are the ones who create great products and we work
> wherever we want. So are we going to work at backstabbing hellholes
> or great places? MOT is doomed until they change their culture and
> Apple will thrive as long as they keep their culture.

Oct 27 04:11 PM

[omnimoeish:]

Ironically, the iPhone and its amazingly easy to use internet browser is what is killing the AT&T network.

brainstormtech.blogs.f.../

www.goip.com/2009/09/a.../

Oct 27 05:05 PM

[dual cit:]

Hey, all I know is that since going Mac three years ago, I will never go back. My kids insist on Mac. So do all their friends. It may never capture 50% of the market.....but neither has Mercedes or BMW.

Now with $400M in Kliener Perkins money behind the appstore developers, it's game over in the big picture. How do you play this? Find the great app companies sprouting up like Artificial Life (ALIF)

Oct 27 10:48 PM

[Joseph Sherman:]

IBM once dominated the computer market, Microsoft dominated software, and Yahoo lead search engine pack. Apple cannot fall into the same trap of thinking that it will always dominate the market. No firm can be a leader by standing on yesterdays competitive
advantage.

Oct 28 01:44 AM

[Tom B:]

" No firm can be a leader by standing on yesterdays competitive
advantage. "

Absolutely correct. But, it's funny how people still expect MSFT to be king of the roost in OS's 5 or 10 years from now.

With regards to phones, I don't see Android as compelling. Yet. If the platform starts looking credible, maybe I'll trim back my AAPL and increase my GOOG.... I'm already convinced Pre, RIMM, and WinMo are no threat and probably won't be in the future.

On Oct 28 01:44 AM Joseph Sherman wrote:

> IBM once dominated the computer market, Microsoft dominated software,
> and Yahoo lead search engine pack. Apple cannot fall into the same
> trap of thinking that it will always dominate the market. No firm
> can be a leader by standing on yesterdays competitive
advantage.

Oct 28 07:59 AM

[geohjr:]

You're right about the apps being so key. My son, a blackberry user, was explaining to me how he was blown away by the apps when his friend turned on his iphone in a bar to identify a song that was playing when they couldn't remember the name/artist. As he says, "it's all about the apps."

Oct 28 11:42 AM

[waterman:]

Tom B.

Trimming back aapl (at ~$195/share today) and increasing GOOG (at $543) will certainly be interesting to do.

Oct 28 11:55 AM

[Kirkaiya:]

Good analysis, although a lot of the points you made have been made elsewhere, although possibly not on investing sites.

Android is certainly not out to "kill" the iPhone; as you said, that would be an almost impossible task. The smartphone market is growing fast enough to accommodate multiple major platforms: iPhone OS (eg, OSX on ARM), Android (custom UI on Java on Linux on ARM), Windows Mobile and Symbian, and just barely, WebOS. Symbian is a dead OS walking, in my opinion, although it will take years for the corpse to stop moving. WinMo has a very short window of opportunity to knock WM7 out of the park, or they're also going to stay below 10% market share.

So after the eventual shake-out, there will be iPhones, Android phones, and either WebOS and Symbian, or WinMo and Symbian, with Symbian on a long, slow decline.

Android has a strength from its polytheistic approach: hardware can quickly leapfrog Apple's annual updates. Witness the 854x480 screen on Motorola's new Droid, vs 480x320 on the iPhone (Droid packs more than 2.6 x iPhone's total pixels). At least two other "SnapDragon" powered Android phones are coming, with Cortex A8 processors pushing near 1 GHz. Samsung sells one with an AMOLED screen. So with different manufacturers, you have multiple hardware refreshes in a year.

My guess is that Android's installed base surpasses the iPhone base in 3 - 5 years.

Oct 28 01:58 PM

[Dango:]

With respect to the comment about MOT have a sick culture ...I work at MOT and agree this once was but this has been changing with the arrival of the new CEO Sanjay Jha and the strong leadership and direction he has brought to the company. We are working much more effectively with a much reduced staff. Employees are more optimistic than I

Oct 28 06:13 PM

[neutrino23:]

I don't much care for the religion analogy as it obscures rather than illuminates. The whole business of iPhone killers (or BB killers or what have you) is driven by the tech pundits looking for splashy headlines. I think the business people are just looking for profits and survival. As such Apple seems to be looking for a secure market position, they are not trying to dominate the market.

The tech blogs focus too much on superficial features of phones and extrapolate market penetration based on that. Market share is earned by a mix of characteristics, one of them being the product itself. In addition you need to consider company reputation, product reputation, customer support, retail outlets, advertising, and many other things.

For a newcomer to become a hit is not an overnight process. Share grows over time and now the competitive situation is much tougher. When Apple introduced the iPhone there was no Apps store and no other phone similar to the iPhone. Newcomers don't have that benefit. Apple and others will not sit idly by and let another company gain share without a response.

My take is that Apple will continue to see strong growth. Apple has a great mix of reputation, 200+ retail outlets that also provide support and now they have a huge installed base. Keeping a customer is cheaper and easier than getting a new customer. Apple also has the power to add more extrinsic value to their phones. iTunes Music Store and the Apps Store are examples. Expect more ventures like this next year (my opinion).

RIMM will do OK but continue their slow loss of market share.

Android phones will replace Nokia as the provider of low cost phones. Probably in a few years the numbers of Android phones will exceed the number of iPhones. iPhones will capture the lions share of the profit and will continue to be the feature leaders.

WM will malinger but not die as MS will keep shoveling money at it. Perhaps they will find a way to give it away and make money elsewhere such as in selling office for mobile phones?

Symbian OS will fade away year by year. It might not be bad, but there is just no reason for it to live. Why switch to something that is maybe almost as good as Android and a distant second to OS X?

Nov 01 09:33 PM

[CGP:]

@jmmx:
In my ridiculously, small limited mind, the "loyal following" are Appleites who expound on the superiority of their ecosystem and denigrate the idiocy of those who may choose or even appreciate the virtues of anything else, regardless of what personal computing option they choose (btw can you site your source for user demographics?). They also find affirmation of self in the sure coming domination of their "way".

Thank you for your interest in my place of residence (planet Earth vs. planet Apple) and your tortured definition of a smartphone. Tautological? the flame surely burns strong for the devout.


<<@CGP
You say: "Apple has basically just locked in their loyal following..."

What planet are you living on? Most iPhone and iPod owners are on Windows computers not Macs. If you want to argue that anyone who buys an iPod/phone automatically falls into the category "their loyal following" then your argument is tautological and thereby tells us nothing.

In fact, iPhone arguably owns the largest share of the smartphone market if you define smartphone as a cell phone device designed to provide a realistic access to the internet. (I.E. a window large enough to do more than trivial tasks). This fact is verified by the enormous share of mobile web browsing owned by iPhone/Touch.

In light of this, your comments are ridiculous.>>

Nov 02 02:04 AM