[cloudwalking]

You are absolutely right in what you say regarding integration.

I disagree with your final analysis of where this leaves Apple. I think Apple will continue to hold a significant chunk of the "high-end" luxury market. iOS will maintain high price points and Apple will maintain its polish--and consumers with expendable income will keep their sales strong. I suspect their market share in Europe, USA, Japan, and wealthy Chinese won't drop too much (30% of market? 45%?). Android will claim the entire low-cost market--the rest of China, India, South America.

I think Apple will maintain its profits, but Android will secure the majority of the world market. Apple is trying to maximize percentage of industry profit rather than percentage of industry sales.

[nestlequ1k]

Sure, Apple is trying to maximize profit. But how does that help me?

We're developers right? We need to find the market with the most potential. If I'm developing for a platform where the platform holder is laser focused on maximizing their profit, but not their marketshare... it seems like I've made the wrong choice.

I see a lot of iPhone devs (not you specifically) try to justify Apple's shrinking marketshare by saying it's fine since Apple is still taking the total profit in the industry. Either they've heavily invested their earnings into AAPL, or they're trying to pull any stat they possibly can to justify their platform choice.

[enraged_camel]

Simple: people who have the kind of income to pay a premium for Apple devices will also be more willing and able to pay a premium for good apps. There lies your profit. (Not to mention your costs will be lower since iOS ha no fragmentation.)

[akmiller]

> iOS has no fragmentation

I think the correct statement would be iOS has "less" fragmentation. They still have fragmentation though. Not only through the devices but also the version of iOS running on the device. It can get pretty hairy trying to maintain support for multiple iOS devices with versions of even just 4.3 and up.

[veemjeem]

If you think iOS is hairy supporting 4.3 and up, you probably have no experience supporting Android apps. The fragmentation extends beyond the Android version. The differences between handsets are so big that one pretty much has to ignore the users who own phones that are impossible to test with. You'll get some random complaint from a user running your app on a device from a manufacturer you've never even heard of.

Look at Google's own wallet app -- it only runs on only 6 android devices. If you want to run google wallet on your Nexus S, you'll have to run a 3rd party "hacked" version of Google Wallet.

[magicalist]

Google wallet is a really poor example of fragmentation that a developer would run into since it has nothing to do with varying hardware and drivers, it's the carriers that are blocking it and (AFAIK) there's no reason that a developer would care whether or not the app itself is there. The hardware is accessible; Verizon and AT&T will use it for their own attempt at a payment system. That whole situation isn't really analogous to any other fragmentation you might encounter.

Android development and testing really isn't all that painful, and most of the new APIs you might miss are backported and available for the more prevalent Gingerbread and now ICS.

[myko]

I've certainly had issues supporting iOS 4 vs 5/6. Most of the Android issues I run into have to do with WebViews behaving differently on different OEMs devices. Both forms of fragmentation can be a pain in the ass.

Probably games developers have it harder on Android, but for the average app it seems just about the same to me as a developer.

[shinratdr]

The key difference is if you cut out iOS 4 only users you're eliminating at most 2-3% of your market. If you were to try and do the same thing with Android and require ICS or higher you would be blocking off 50%+ of your market.

There is little expectation of iOS 4 support at this point, because users who purchased an iPhone in the last 4 years don't have to use it. The same is hardly true for Gingerbread. Most of the phones that shipped with that half-baked OS will have it until they're retired into a drawer somewhere.

[clarky07]

it does have some fragmentation with the new screen size, but supporting iOS versions is a dream compared to android. 85% of my users are on iOS 6 already and 98.5% are on 5 or greater. You can easily drop support for 4.xx and below, and it wouldn't hurt too badly to drop support for 5. Try doing that on android.

[taligent]

Actually I think the correct statement is that iOS has such little fragmentation (in comparison to Android) that it is effectively zero.

Every developer can safely target iOS 5. With Android it is still 2.3.

[akmiller]

Well that hasn't been our experience. We've dealt with many issues and we've had customers from 4.3 up to 6.0. Not to mention devices from 3GS and the original iPad up to the latest. I haven't done any Android applications yet but I can imagine it would be worse if you wanted to target a large base of users (I will be gaining that experience rather soon).

[bookwormAT]

> iOS has no fragmentation

iOS is fragmentation. Android exists because 10 years ago, every mobile vendor was making his own incompatible operating system. So a developer had to make 300 different versions of his app to reach his audience. That was impossible, so there was no market for mobile apps.

Today, there are still 300 different devices, and maybe a 100 different operating systems. But because ~95 of these are based on Android, you can write a single cross-platform software that runs on all these systems. Android was build to defragment the market, and it was a huge success.

It might not work perfectly, but adapting your App to some strange behavior in some fancy Android device is still a lot less work than making a whole new app from scratch!

The only interesting OSes that you have to write everything from scratch for today are iOS and Windows Phone. These two systems are, unlike all the others, not compatible with each other and require a significant amount of extra work. And that is called fragmentation.

[kemiller]

I think it's more nuanced than that. If Apple customers are more affluent than average, and/or more willing to spend money on apps, then it continues to be a great market even if the sheer volume is lower.

If you're making something that you give away for free and make money on the volume of participants somehow, then Android is probably a better bet at that point, but if that's your strategy you probably want to target everything.

[bane]

I agree, potentially less money in the consumer's pocket is less money they can spend on my product.

I wonder how the mix of average money spent on iphone vs android apps per consumer has changed?

Or at the very least, total dollars spent on apps on each platform?

[briandear]

But the cost-conscious consumer is typically less inclined to buy apps. This thread is relevant: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2929612

[cloudwalking]

> We're developers right? We need to find the market with the most potential.

Are you optimizing for making money, or for making impact? There's no right or wrong platform (iOS or Android), it just depends on what your goals are.

[ajross]

It's worth pointing out that very similar things were said about Apple computer c. 1990, as comparatively primitive[1] windows 3.0 boxes were being increasingly sold into the PC market at volumes dwarfing what Apple was seeing with their more polished and higher-margin macintosh line.

That didn't work out so well.

[1] And it really was. Comparing System 6 to Windows 3.0 was night and day to any observer, even people with very little market knowledge. Android is, relatively, much, much closer to iOS in polish (even granting that iOS is the "better" choice, which lots of smart people don't).

[clarky07]

It's also worth pointing out, that Apple has kept huge market share and profits in the iPod market. Sales have only gone down recently because everyone already has 1(or 2 or 3).

I'd like to think Apple has learned a few things since 90, and I also think these markets are a bit different. The compatibility problem isn't as bad this time, as most devs are making apps for both platforms, Apple still has a (slight) advantage here in terms of quality, and a fairly big advantage in terms of profitability. As long as they stay on par for profitability for devs they will keep a decent market share (20-40).

[ajross]

Sure, but those aren't independent variables. Their advantage in profitability derives almost entirely from their perceived advantage in quality (both because consumers will pay more for the devices in sticker price and because they can command better deals with carrier partners who know that they'll sell more boxes). Over the long term, no one is going to pay more for iOS devices that don't have a clear quality advantage.

Clearly 22 years ago isn't a perfect comparison, and I don't claim to know the future either. I'm just cautioning against putting your faith in "polish" and "margins". Historically those have been poor indicators of success in the consumer market.

[clarky07]

I think you misunderstood. I'm talking about the apps on the platforms. The devs are making slightly better apps, and they are making significantly more on iOS. As long as those continue to be true, it will compete with users as a phone and will compete with devs as a platform.

[bitcartel]

I don't think Apple are really in the "high-end" luxury market otherwise you'd see an iPhone as often as you see someone driving a Rolls-Royce Phantom or wearing an Audemars Piguet watch.

I think it would be fair to compare Apple products to consumer level fashion items from luxury brands. Whether it's Armani jeans, Calvin Klein boxers or Gucci handbags, people are willing to spend a little more because of perceived value or identity with the brand, even though they can get the same product for less at Banana Republic or GAP.

However unlike Apple, the likes of Louis Vuitton and Gucci do sell high-end luxury items at ridiculous prices, often unique bespoke pieces, which ordinary consumers would never be able to afford. Were Apple to be comparable, they would be selling boutique devices at $10k-$20k like a gold-plated iPhone with 5" screen, 8-core 64 bit ARM processor, 32GB ram, 512GB storage.

[eta_carinae]

> iOS will maintain high price points

What high price points? iOS devices (phones and tablets) are pretty much at the same price as the competition.

[pook1e]

In the past, I'd agree with you. However, comparing Google's latest lineup with Apple's latest lineup tells a much different story (all 16GB):

Nexus 4: $349; iPhone 5: $699

Nexus 7: $199; iPad Mini: $329

Nexus 10: $399; iPad: $499

Of course, Apple and Google aren't in the same business, but they are very much competitors.

[w1ntermute]

> Apple and Google aren't in the same business

And this makes a world of difference. Google is selling products at cost to drive their ad business. There's no way you can compare that to Apple's business model. The idea that Apple sells expensive products is a belief born out of the PC market, and if you want to compare apples to apples, you should be looking at the iPhone 5 vs the Samsung Galaxy S3.

[eertami]

> you should be looking at the iPhone 5 vs the Samsung Galaxy S3.

But the S3 is so far ahead of the iPhone that it also is not a fair comparison.

[Steko]

What's this rubbish?

iPhone 5: thinner, lighter, higher quality construction, better battery life, better cpu, better gpu, superior display quality (full sRGB, IPS, higher ppi), better ecosystem, better apps, will be regularly updated for years, better customer service, etc.

GS 3: bigger screen diagonal, more RAM, NFC, better front camera

Go back to Engadget kid.

[w1ntermute]

You pop up in so many threads to defend Apple that I recognize your username by now. Do you work for Apple's PR department or something? If so, I sure hope they're paying you overtime for being here on a Friday night. Well, here we go...

> thinner

Yeah, by 1.2 mm. If you're wearing skinny hipster jeans like your average Apple fanboi, it makes a difference, but for the rest of us, that's insignificant.

> lighter

Again, 21 g. Not a big deal.

> higher quality construction

Right, that's why so many people are reporting chips and scratches on the aluminum back the day that they get the phone. It looks like Apple didn't learn anything from the glass back disaster with the iPhone 4/4S.

> better battery life

Both phones can easily last a full day of intense usage. The iPhone's slightly longer battery life is a result of its puny screen.

And don't forget that the Galaxy S3's battery is user-removable and replaceable. You can carry an additional battery with you and swap it in as needed, or you can get an extended battery - for just $30 on Amazon, you can get an extended battery with 4200 mAh, double the standard 2100 mAh battery and nearly three times the iPhone 5's 1440 mAh battery.

> better cpu

Uhh, no. Just no. The iPhone 5 has a 1.3 GHz dual-core processor, whereas the Galaxy S3 has a 1.4 GHz quad-core processor. Next time, please try to extricate yourself from the reality distortion field before making statements related to Apple or its products.

> superior display quality

Ignoring the fact that display quality is inherently subjective, that the iPhone has a better display is far from a foregone conclusion: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57524291-37/color-me-prett...

> better ecosystem, better apps

Are you kidding me? Let me know when there are functional Gmail, Google Talk, and Google Voice apps for the iPhone, and when I can use the default mapping software (which can't be replaced) without ending up in the middle of a river. And let's not even get started on the inability to install 3rd party browsers on the iPhone or use apps like Locale and Tasker without jailbreaking.

> will be regularly updated for years

I'd rather not have updates than have them break core functionality, like mapping.

> better customer service

This is probably the only thing Apple does better. That said, I've never actually needed customer service on my Android phones, unlike my friends with iPhones, who've taken their phones in to have the broken glass backs replaced with alarming frequency.

Go back to Daring Fireball kid.

[mardix]

You also have to see in USA, people will get the phone at subsidized amount. Like most phone on a two year plan cost between $99 to $199.

Macbook maybe luxury in the computer world, but iPhone, not really

[hiddenstage]

So isn't that telling then that Android is outpacing the iPhone in sales?

[sbuk]

Not when the market is flooded with cheap commodity handsets, no.

[scottm01]

The iPhone 5 is $649 unsubsidized, not $699. Other features aside (some of which it lacks compared to Nexus), it does have an LTE radio and works on, say, Verizon.

Source: Someone who just paid full boat for a 5 after my Droid Charge was destroyed. At least I still have my unlimited data and subsidy coming up next year.

[taligent]

Of course just comparing on price ignores some big differences.

Nexus 4 has no LTE. Nexus 7 has terrible build quality. Nexus 10 has nearly half the battery life.

[Tyrannosaurs]

You're the first person I've ever heard say that the Nexus 7 has terrible build quality and the AnandTech figures show that the 10 has around 90% of the iPad battery life rather than "nearly half".

[czhiddy]

Build quality issues were rampant when the device was introduced. I had to swap out my Nexus 7 twice because of loose-screen / screen-flicker issues. I did order it the day it was released, so maybe there were some unresolved factory quality control issues at the time.

My current unit has a speck of dirt trapped under the screen, but I don't really care that much anymore given that the thing was $199. You'd be a lot less annoyed about a rattle in the dashboard on a new Corolla than you would if you bought a BMW.

Battery life during use is generally good, but the battery in mine dies completely after ~4 days of non-use. Stock install, nothing but my Google account signed in. I'm not sure if it's a hardware issue, but reinstalling the OS hasn't fixed it.

[taligent]

Maybe you should Google it because it is pretty common knowledge that Nexus 7 is very hit/miss in terms of build quality.

And I stupidly compared battery life against iPad Mini. So it is not half and not 90%. It's about 65% of the iPad according to Engadget.

Nexus 10: 7.26 hours, iPad 4: 11.08 hours

[bryanlarsen]

You're really good at cherry picking, aren't you? Anandtech for the performance numbers, Engadget for battery life numbers. By Anandtech's numbers, the Nexus 10 gets 93% of the battery life of the iPad, even though the Nexus 10 uses a much smaller battery. Between the lighter battery and the grippy back, Google designed a device that can be safely held in one hand, a tradeoff I appreciate.

[pook1e]

Ah, yes. The old game of taking a perceived flaw of a product that is competitive to a product you like, and blowing it way out of proportion. I'll play a round.

- The camera on the iPhone 5 has the 'purple haze' issue.

- The iPad mini has an embarrassingly low resolution display for (almost) 2013, despite also having a larger display than the Nexus 7.

- The iPad 4 doesn't run as hot as the iPad 3, and no longer makes me scrambled eggs for breakfast while I play Infinity Blade.

Seriously. All products have flaws, and therefore there is no perfect product. Pointing out flaws to prove that your favorite company is better than their competitors is counter-productive. I really wish people would stop this childish debate and just agree that both Google (with their hardware partners) and Apple make fantastic, competing products.

[drivebyacct2]

It's really just painful to watch you comment in these thread. It really just hurts.

[technotony]

There's a slide in here which shows apple has ten times the app download revenues that android has: http://www.businessinsider.com/state-of-internet-slides-2012...

[j-v]

This. From an app developer's perspective, there's no contest currently.

And mobile web usage isn't looking much better for Android: http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-android-mobile-web-usag...

No doubt more and more phones in pockets will be running Android. But how many will really be used like smart phones?

[jarek]

> From an app developer's perspective, there's no contest currently.

To be more exact, this is the perspective of a developer looking to monetize their application by selling directly to users.

[myko]

Of course on Android it is easy to say 'show me the desktop version' of a site which uses a different UA which would show up as a desktop browser and not an Android phone.

[jusben1369]

One nitpick is the tablet isn't "up market" but rather a new market. A device that sits between an PC and a mobile phone.