Another boring money post

[Patler]

Except that's only one factor. Just as big a factor is that lots of manufacturers are free to build Android phones. And thus, Android provides many more choices in phones, as well as carriers.


Sony didn't license beta. VHS won.

Apple didn't license the Mac OS. Windows won.


There might be a pattern here.

Sure looks like one to me!

[MJZiggy]

Do you really think I cared one whit about the stats? Don't you know when your chain is being pulled?

Not at 5 a.m. apparently...

[MJZiggy]

Ya, there was a time when Sony was the consumer electronics god. Sony TV's were widely viewed as a cut above the rest for a long time, too. Sony audio systems for quality and price as a combination. Sony gadgets too.

Just make you want to buy Sony stock, doesn't it?

[Little Whiskey]

Sony was the hot commodity that I was searching for. Remember how hot the Walkman was? Damn Sony was on the cutting edge, weren't they.

bleeding edge

[Patler]

Ya, there was a time when Sony was the consumer electronics god. Sony TV's were widely viewed as a cut above the rest for a long time, too. Sony audio systems for quality and price as a combination. Sony gadgets too.

Just make you want to buy Sony stock, doesn't it?

Honestly, at the time they were on the top, sure, maybe. Same thing for Apple now. AAPL has been my single largest holding this year, but by no means my only holding. Nor does it mean that I expect to own it the rest of my life, or that I think it will be a great stock to own in 5 years, or 2 years, or even 1 year. I only believe it is good to own right now, and I will continue to re-evaluate that opinion.

[Partial]

Except that's only one factor. Just as big a factor is that lots of manufacturers are free to build Android phones. And thus, Android provides many more choices in phones, as well as carriers.

To a degree, yes. I think you'd have a hard time telling HTC that it's free to build Android devices. They're being sued into oblivion. The Motorola Mobility patent profile is weak evidently and analysts don't expect it to help much. In addition to that, HTC pays a hefty licensing fee to Microsoft for patents in every handset they sell.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11217263/1/microsoft-reaps-android-licensing-fees.html

Google is also in some seriously hot water for not licensing java properly. Oracle won't back down.

Having said that, I think this is ridiculous. Patent law is so backwards in software. I would love it if Google really could distribute it for free. Hopefully they will be able to soon. To clarify, Android's presence is good. Android as a consumer piece of software is a nightmare.

Sony didn't license beta. VHS won.

Apple didn't license the Mac OS. Windows won.

There might be a pattern here.

Did MS really win? Apple makes more money and is worth more today. I agree that marketshare is hugely important and Windows clearly dominates this. At the end of the day, though, the goal of the business is to make money, so shouldn't this be the merit we choose the winner on? By that merit, Apple is currently winning.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-04-28/tech/30088122_1_windows-phone-microsoft-profit

Scott, what do you have to say about the tablet market where we have a wide variety of competitors and a slew of Android tablets. Adoption rate of tablets has been as fast as any consumer electronic ever developed and Androids adoption rate/market share is actually decreasing instead of increasing in this space. The same principals of being free to use and a wide variety of Android tablets exist. How do you explain this?

What is the difference between smart phones and tablets? Is there a big difference in quality of the user experience between the iPhone and the iPad? Is the level of competition different? What about the quality of the versions of Android between the two?

To me, the big difference is the middle man (the carriers). This soon won't be an issue for iPhone.

Pat, to me, AAPL has a few more good years in it before the growth will slow down. They simply cannot keep doubling in sales every year for much longer. Having said that, I think they can continue to grow rapidly for two more years at least.

It is refreshing to discuss with intellectuals, fellas. Keep it up. It would be great if the likes of RG/Ziggy would bring something besides sarcasm and ass-hattery to the table if they wished to continue to discuss.

edit:

I cannot stress enough how we are now in the age of software. Software is what will define the two technologies. With the vhs stuff, we're looking at hardware. Both had roughly equivalent user experiences, did they not? Maybe one had technical superiority, I don't know. In my opinion, this battle will be won in software. If the iPhone never existed and Android gingerbread was the standard, we'd think it was incredible. Having said that, iOs does exist and it's a much more pleasant user experience. Smartphones are so paramount in your typical person's day (email, calendar, calls, communication, etc) that the user wants the best possible experience.

Android has some unique characteristics that are good, such as their notification system that Apple blatantly ripped off. It seems to be that basically all of the complaints/reasons people would go with Android today are going to be moot with the iPhone 5.

"Android phones have bigger screens" - iPhone 5 will have a beautiful 4" display (which is still the highest res display) which in my opinion is really the sweet spot on screen size. The original galaxy phones nailed the screen.

"I can't get an iPhone on my carrier and I'm on a family plan" - Not anymore, iPhone will be available on all of the major players according to the rumors. I really hope this is true.

The iCloud stuff breaking the cord from iTunes will really help. The iTunes infrastructure with music, videos, etc is great, but the notion of plugging in to load some on my device seems so archaic to me. This is late 2011, after all.

Users are going to be wowed when they snap photos on their iPhone and they automatically on their computer. Who doesn't hate synching photos? I know I do!

Little things like the photo synching things just make your life as a user better. Now this is obviously a super small chunk of the equation, but the user experience is made up of the sum of (the small) parts.

[Patler]

With the vhs stuff, we're looking at hardware. Both had roughly equivalent user experiences, did they not? Maybe one had technical superiority, I don't know. In my opinion, this battle will be won in software. If the iPhone never existed and Android gingerbread was the standard, we'd think it was incredible. Having said that, iOs does exist and it's a much more pleasant user experience. Smartphones are so paramount in your typical person's day (email, calendar, calls, communication, etc) that the user wants the best possible experience.

Android has some unique characteristics that are good, such as their notification system that Apple blatantly ripped off. It seems to be that basically all of the complaints/reasons people would go with Android today are going to be moot with the iPhone 5..

No, they did not have roughly the same user experience for quite a while.

Sony - smaller, easier to carry from room to room. VHS competitors big and clumsy. In the early days, I'm talking about machines maybe 30+ inches and very, very heavy.

Sony- you could watch one channel and record on another. VHS - had to watch the channel that the recorder was recording. People had a dedicated TV just for their recorder.

Sony - you could pause a recording (and edit out a commercial by doing it). You could also "live pause" a playback, comeback and continue from where you paused. Initially, VHS erquired continuous run. There was no "pause" and if you hit "stop" it would stop recording or playing completely and automatically rewind to the beginning of the tape for most of them.

These are just some that come to mind.

Users are going to be wowed when they snap photos on their iPhone and they automatically on their computer. Who doesn't hate synching photos? I know I do!

Little things like the photo synching things just make your life as a user better. Now this is obviously a super small chunk of the equation, but the user experience is made up of the sum of (the small) parts.

SOME users will be wowed by those things, but I suspect for many (maybe even most) they won't really care all that much. I have a sneaking feeling that the vast majority of smartphone users in the future will be using basic functions and will not be life dependent on the glitz and glamor features. However, the ones for which it is a big "wow" will be the vocal ones and make it sound like it is more important than it really is.

[MJZiggy]

No, they did not have roughly the same user experience for quite a while.

Sony - smaller, easier to carry from room to room. VHS competitors big and clumsy. In the early days, I'm talking about machines maybe 30+ inches and very, very heavy.

Sony- you could watch one channel and record on another. VHS - had to watch the channel that the recorder was recording. People had a dedicated TV just for their recorder.

Sony - you could pause a recording (and edit out a commercial by doing it). You could also "live pause" a playback, comeback and continue from where you paused. Initially, VHS erquired continuous run. There was no "pause" and if you hit "stop" it would stop recording or playing completely and automatically rewind to the beginning of the tape for most of them.

These are just some that come to mind.




SOME users will be wowed by those things, but I suspect for many (maybe even most) they won't really care all that much. I have a sneaking feeling that the vast majority of smartphone users in the future will be using basic functions and will not be life dependent on the glitz and glamor features. However, the ones for which it is a big "wow" will be the vocal ones and make it sound like it is more important than it really is.

I think Sony's problem was that they invented very cool and high-quality bells and whistles that were also a bit on the expensive side and then everyone else took the ideas and flooded the market with cheaper products that did the exact same things and, as technology advanced learned to do them even better and smaller. When the market flooded and the cool factor of owning an original Walkman (or whatever device) wore off, Sony's share in it became closer to a niche than a domination.

[Scott Campbell]

Did MS really win? Apple makes more money and is worth more today.

We were talking products - not company. Windows beat Mac. Pretty handily. It nearly killed AAPL. It ushered in the John Scully era, when Jobs got the boot.

[Partial]

I think Sony's problem was that they invented very cool and high-quality bells and whistles that were also a bit on the expensive side and then everyone else took the ideas and flooded the market with cheaper products that did the exact same things and, as technology advanced learned to do them even better and smaller. When the market flooded and the cool factor of owning an original Walkman (or whatever device) wore off, Sony's share in it became closer to a niche than a domination.

Maybe, but then again why do people drive BMWs, and Mercedes? It's quite ironic the stance RG is in this discussion about fancy devices when he at least used to drive a Mercedes. Is there any thing more delta bravo and hypocritical about bitching about the price of a high end luxury good when you drive a Mercedes? LOL!

"These high end Apple computers with their proprietary parts are too expensive. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go to International Autos to have my luxury sedan serviced because the proprietary German parts aren't commonly available". Ha! Too funny.



Scott, I'm legitimately interested in this from a businessman's perspective:

Scott, what do you have to say about the tablet market where we have a wide variety of competitors and a slew of Android tablets. Adoption rate of tablets has been as fast as any consumer electronic ever developed and Androids adoption rate/market share is actually decreasing instead of increasing in this space. The same principals of being free to use and a wide variety of Android tablets exist. How do you explain this?

What is the difference between smart phones and tablets? Is there a big difference in quality of the user experience between the iPhone and the iPad? Is the level of competition different? What about the quality of the versions of Android between the two?

To me, the big difference is the middle man (the carriers). This soon won't be an issue for iPhone.

[Patler]

I think Sony's problem was that they invented very cool and high-quality bells and whistles that were also a bit on the expensive side and then everyone else took the ideas and flooded the market with cheaper products that did the exact same things and, as technology advanced learned to do them even better and smaller. When the market flooded and the cool factor of owning an original Walkman (or whatever device) wore off, Sony's share in it became closer to a niche than a domination.

Yup, that's pretty much it. I don't see that as much different than what is happening today.

[Scott Campbell]

Scott, what do you have to say about the tablet market where we have a wide variety of competitors and a slew of Android tablets. Adoption rate of tablets has been as fast as any consumer electronic ever developed and Androids adoption rate/market share is actually decreasing instead of increasing in this space. The same principals of being free to use and a wide variety of Android tablets exist. How do you explain this?

I'm still not entirely sold long term on the tablet market. They may still be selling on their novelty value vs. their practical value. But the sales numbers are pretty eye popping. So I'm watching developments with an open mind.

The market looks like it's playing out a lot like the PDA cellphone market. Apple has taken a concept that's been around a long time and built a UI that transformed the potential of the market into an actual market. Android ain't there, and doesn't currently have a competitive product. But Google has proven adept at playing "me too" over time, and I wouldn't write them off in the table space yet.

[Scott Campbell]

To me, the big difference is the middle man (the carriers). This soon won't be an issue for iPhone.

They already have AT&T and Verizon - the two dominant carriers in the US. I think your hopes for carrier based market share growth might be a little over zealous.

[Scott Campbell]

Users are going to be wowed when they snap photos on their iPhone and they automatically on their computer. Who doesn't hate synching photos? I know I do!

How long will that be a differentiating feature? Google already snycs to everything else.

And it looks like Samsung has already eliminated the iPhones advantage over Android for picture and video taking.



What I'm seeing at the moment is relative feature parity, with users primarily choosing one platform over the other based on personal preference and familiarity. And price.

[Partial]

They already have AT&T and Verizon - the two dominant carriers in the US. I think your hopes for carrier based market share growth might be a little over zealous.

They dominate ATT. They went onto Verizon more than half way through their typical product cycle. The product, despite being a foolish buy now in my opinion, remains Verizon's best selling phone. It's been on Verizon 9 months so, so it's (24 months - 9 months) - time remaining on contract before a lot of people can affordably get an iPhone on Verizon. Assuming an average distribution of contract signings throughout the year, 5/8 of the people interested in an iPhone on Verizon haven't had the opportunity to upgrade yet.

Google syncs to their cloud stuff. Apple syncs directly to all of your systems. Apple has the infrastructure to sync to computers, TV's (The Apple TV 2nd get is the de facto media streamer -- it will only get bigger and bigger if they release an app store for it -- the amateur porn channel (I wish) ), etc. Using Google's set-up, I would still have to log-in to my Google photos account (what is this, Picasa?) and download the pics. Why not just plug the device in then?

Unless Google TVs and Google Chrome Books start flying off shelves (not happening), they don't have the infrastructure to make it valuable.