I think I’m just pointing out the obvious to be honest and it’s something I’ve seen repeatedly on this forum. People who repeatedly bloviate about topics regarding which they are essentially ignorant but about which they pretend to be knowledgeable. I’ll admit that you seem to have some understanding of the history of the PC industry but I’m not seeing that same understanding of the mobile industry. Accordingly, I don’t consider your speculation ‘educated’ and therefore worth very much. I barely follow the industry myself and seem to have a better understanding of it than you do.
Thanks for putting that on the record.
So you’re also a legal expert now as well? Didn’t you just say this isn’t about being an expert? Well, I’m pretty sure any license isn’t going to apply to future versions of the software - which you seem to admit yourself. And as to ‘some other entity’ taking up maintenance and enhancement - yeah, right. That’s why we’re on version 4.4 of the Linux mobile OS - oh, wait . . .
That’s simply a naive attitude. Even with a huge community of open source developers for Linux it barely has a few percent of the PC OS market - and even that took decades to develop.
I’m not going to go much further with you, the trend I’ve seen from you is to talk much about yourself and what you are an expert on. You are big on touting your own credentials when you feel they’ll help you win an argument. However, this is a message board where people discuss ideas. It has not, nor will it ever be, a message board where people proclaim themselves experts and only those people get a say.
There are lots of people experts on many matters on these forums, but even they do not fall back on that in their arguments–because it isn’t accepted here, nor should it be.
You’re like a personification of the logical fallacy of “appealing to authority.” There are many problems with your approach:
This is an anonymous message board. By and large we cannot reliably verify who is actually an expert in anything, even when they really are. There are a few posters who have been willing to expose more of their personal lives than I personally would feel comfortable with and in that sense are confirmed as experts. For the rest, we have to accept that we cannot truly know if they are experts or not.
No one is an expert on every subject in their field. Since discussion here are wide ranging, it is simply impossible for there to be meaningful discourse if the standard is “we only talk among experts.” Even if we had someone who worked for say, Motorola designing phones here on the forums, he isn’t necessarily an expert on the business. He wouldn’t be an expert on patent law, wouldn’t be an expert on all kinds of aspects of the wireless industry just by virtue of his job title.
That leaves us with the only real option: have discussions, and if someone makes a factual claim that you doubt, ask them to demonstrate it with citations.
What you’ve done to my posts is dismissed them “broadly” with little actual refutation other than saying stuff like “I’m an expert compared to you” and “you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about.” If there are specific (and you can show they are specific by quoting them individual or specifically addressing them) problems you have with things I say, and you’d like to call them out you can do so, feel free to ask for cites. If what you’re calling out is an opinion then do not ask for cites, because one can’t cite an opinion–an this forum specifically is for the exchange of opinions. If you have a problem with an opinion I’ve expressed, then please offer a counter-opinion. What you do instead is just say “you’re wrong and stupid, and I’m really smart” in most of the threads you participate in.
I’ve given you more fair shakes to have discussions than I do most people that act the way you do, and I think I’ve given you a nice general guideline on having entertaining discussions on this message board. Maybe for you the entertainment value is in dismissing posts (with no specific counter arguments at all) and talking about how smart you are. If that’s the case, I’m actually fine with that. I’ll categorize you appropriately and mostly disregard your posts, but if you’re actually looking for discussion you need to get over yourself and don’t pretend you yourself are an expert on everything on qualified to even evaluate who is an expert on everything, and then actually address arguments by making counter arguments. All I’ve seen you really do in almost every thread you participate in is just insist individual posters do not know what they are talking about, and all the time you rarely provide counter arguments of your own. In the cases where you have, they’ve often been wrong or deeply ignorant on the subject matter, but I won’t hold that against you–I’ve been very wrong before as well, it happens.
You say that I should be making factual statements but you admit that everything you’ve said is speculation, so apparently there’s a double standard here? Uh, ok. That seems to be pretty typical of your responses so far as well as my previous encounters with you.
You also say that I’m appealing to authority when I’ve clearly made no such claim, so where exactly are you getting this from pray tell? I even admitted that I barely follow the mobile industry so to whom is this directed - clearly it isn’t me.
And what exactly are my credentials? Have I mentioned any credentials in this discussion? I’m pretty sure I haven’t - certainly none that are relevant to the mobile industry. I could have as to the legal issue, but I know better since even though I do have a law degree I never practiced in that field so I would be an idiot to claim expertise in such a specialized area.
As for ‘giving me fair shakes’ what does that even mean? I don’t require your permission or leave for anything I do or say here - do I? But if you have a problem with me, feel free to take it to the pit. I had fun with you there last time and would enjoy doing it again.
Since you did put forth a (weak and not well fleshed out) counter argument here, I actually will address it.
First, I suggest you familiarize yourself with Apache License which is the open source license Android is published under, and the GNU General Public License which is what the core Linux kernel underlying Android is licensed under.
The modified Linux kernel basically can’t be taken closed source at all, because GNU has copyleft provisions. The Apache License doesn’t have copyleft, so derivatives of the open source Android code could be closed source. But for Google to actually “stop” people from actually using Android it simply can’t do that. Yes, it could stop releasing new versions under the Apache License (but it couldn’t shed GNU for the kernel itself–without entirely rewriting a new underlying OS instead of using Linux), but there would be nothing to stop individuals or companies to just create their own versions.
Most handset manufacturers already do substantial software development, for them to continue releasing new versions of “their” branch of Android would actually not be all that big of a deal. It would hurt the entire Android ecosystem though. But there is really zero chance that Google could say, “we’re releasing future versions of Android under a new license and it is going to be closed source, we’re charging $15 per handset that wants to use it.” Samsung would laugh at that, take the already working newest version of open source Android and slap that on their phones and then would make improvements to it on their own schedule and that’d be the end of their relationship with Google. Instead of the Google Play store it’d run the Samsung Store or whatever. Companies already have all kinds of versions of Android that do not have Google Play store access. While I can’t say for 100% sure right now, when the failed B&N Nook Tablet came out it ran Android but with no access to the Google store (you could use the B&N store), Amazon had (maybe still has) a similar approach with its Kindle devices. You can’t access the “full/real” Google store, but instead the Amazon store.
If a company like B&N can do its own Android deployment like that I see no reason an actual successful hardware manufacturer that already does a ton of its own software development (like Samsung) would have any problem going down this path.
I never said you should be making factual statements.
I never said you’re appealing to authority in this thread. But if your response to a post of mine is “you’re not an expert” and you don’t actually raise the issues in my post that you disagree with there can be no real discussion on the issue. If that’s the type of posting you want to engage in, then there’s no reason for me to actually respond to you.
So is it your assertion that developing a proprietary OS is a non-starter? Isn’t that what you’re saying Google could do and bend all the handset manufacturers over the table? :dubious:
Not to mention the proprietary OS approach was part of the strategy that took Apple to being the largest company by market cap in the world for awhile.
I’d probably refrain from insulting people’s intelligence if you’re going to post like this.
I think if you’re trying to have a factual discussion, facts should play some role. You don’t seem to share that view and think baseless speculation is perfectly fine even if it seems to run contrary to reality and economic logic. That’s what I’m challenging. Maybe you don’t like the way I go about it. Too bad. I won’t apologize for that.
I don’t think screwing manufacturers is google’s ultimate plan as shown by this interview with Larry Page. My point was I think it’s stupid to ignore that possibility. Back in the Windows 95 days, you could easily get a pirate copy of the OS and MS knew that. They actually encouraged it - unofficially of course - by making no effort to copy protect the software or restrict updates. There was a reason for that and reason was obvious to everyone.
As for Apple - AHAHAHA - where’s that market cap now? Mftr’s like Apple and Samsung are already getting their lunch eaten by cheap Chinese knock off’s. It’s happening now and will just get worse. Maybe it’s not an issue in the US, but this is a global market baby.
As for insults, if I insult you personally, you’ll know it.
Again, point to places where you have specific issue with what I’m saying. Sweeping criticisms are basically pointless to me.
Yes, it would be stupid to ignore that possibility. I’m not seeing a lot of evidence anyone is doing that, since it was a big deal when they bought Motorola Mobility because of just these concerns. They even had to get regulatory approval due to antitrust concerns.
Their market cap is $450bn, higher than ExxonMobil, GE, Wal-Mart etc–largest in the world in fact. Is that something you consider to be bad?
Is it your assertion that losing global market share represents a bad thing for Samsung and Apple? What are there actual quarter to quarter revenue numbers in smartphones? Without more data than your link provides, it could be that Apple and Samsung have both increased shipments over the comparable period, but Chinese manufacturers have tapped a growing phone market in China while Apple and Samsung have failed to do so. In that scenario the loss of “global market share” doesn’t actually mean Samsung or Apple have had declining revenue, in fact they could have had increasing revenue.
Without knowing the margin the Chinese handset makers are operating at, it’s also entirely possible Samsung or Apple don’t want to necessarily sell to the same consumers.
I appreciate you linking to Business Insider, but come on–that’s piss poor analysis. Show me actual revenue numbers quarter to quarter so we can actually analyze your claim that Samsung or Apple are struggling because of Chinese knock offs.
Why? I’ve already done that in my responses to you.
It’s irrelevant. MS had and probably still has great numbers but is moribund as a company. That’s Apple’s future too.
see #3
That’s irrelevant. If you knew anything about growth industries, you’d know that at the beginning, it’s all about market share. Google knows this. Read the Larry Page interview.
Why? It supports the point I was making. Why don’t you start reciprocating by providing some factual cites that people can actually link to rather than simply pulling numbers out of your ass with no apparent basis except what I provide or linking to firewalled cites - how’s that sound?
You’re the one who said “look at their market cap now.” You’re making a specific claim about the market cap there, that somehow it is “bad” and worthy of laughing at. If you wanted to reject market cap entirely you should have done that, instead you specifically mocked their current market cap–which is #1 in the world. Makes no sense.
If a manufacturer is in the business of selling higher end smartphones, they may not want to be part of the growth market in low end smart phones. Apple obviously does–which is why they are making a cheaper version of the iPhone for China. But just pointing to market share doesn’t tell us anything about this issue.
Your cite is piss poor analysis because it is arguing that Samsung is somehow a failing company because it has lost market share. Not all industries result in one company dominating market share forever, market share loss is only meaningful in a broader context. The first company to ship safety razors had 100% market share for awhile, but then many competitors arose. That doesn’t mean the first company was “doing worse.” Since safety razors were a new product, you could actually lose market share and grow revenue–because perhaps 80% market share 5 years in was five times bigger than the whole market in terms of revenue the first year of operations. That’s why the market share picture is incomplete in this case without numbers like total phone shipments or total phone revenue.
As for the firewall (I’m assuming you mean paywall, a firewall is a different thing.) If you don’t want to read a Wall Street Journal article I can’t help you. What number have I “pulled out of my ass?” Please point to the number you believe I made up, and I’ll happily tell you where you can find supporting facts for it.
Doesn’t really follow for a company like Samsung. By and large it and its competitors in China actually are primarily all running Android, so none of them are operating their own platform. Whether Samsung has 1% of the Chinese market or 90%, when it and its primary competitors (essentially everyone other than Apple) are running Android they are all basically running the same platform.
If you look at the argument as “Android versus Apple” then the platform argument makes sense. Below a certain point of market share in China I think Apple becomes just as niche there as BlackBerry or WP are in the United States or the rest of the world, but Samsung doesn’t necessarily have to maintain a certain market share in China to attain some sort of platform goals–Samsung is a hardware manufacturer that ships phones using the same platform as those Chinese home grown competitors.
Incidentally as I think about it, your original chart doesn’t actually indicate Samsung has lost market share to the Chinese manufacturers. Without knowing for sure, I’m going to assume almost all of those company’s phones are sold in China. So if they were taking Samsung market share, it’d be in the Chinese market. But Samsung’s share of the Chinese market has actually grown in recent quarters, not decreased.
They obviously now have a much bigger share of the total global market, but that seems most likely to have come at the expense of other companies that have lost market share in China (like Apple.) Meanwhile, the 1% decline in global market share for Samsung would then most likely have to be attributed to the other manufacturers that gained global market share in your time period, companies like Nokia, Sony, LG etc.
Are you really oblivious to the fact that AAPL dropped like a rock from a high of $700 last year to less than $400 this year and is still trying to recover? That was the point I was making. I didn’t know you would need a chartfor me to make.
See my last post. It’s all about market share. Either you get this or you don’t. Developers write code for the platform. So you’re saying developers aren’t important in essence. Apps aren’t important. Uh, sure.
You say that as if the safety razor market is in any way analogous. As if there is a safety razor app developer community that depends on the Safety Razor v. 2.6 OS platform to develop shaving applications. Jesus, how did you even come up with that?
Yes, paywall. I subscribe to a variety of publications but I’ve very choosy and even then, I try to avoid referencing here the ones I know people here can’t freely access. But if you want to provide the links, don’t think I’m trying to stop you - as long as you realize it’s fairly pointless to do so. I would think that goes w/o saying but I don’t want to assume.
No, but I find it strange you’d laugh about the #1 market cap in the world is all.
This is a nonsense post. If you don’t understand that you’re talking about one company that ships Android phones losing market share to Chinese competitors (as I correctly pointed out, Samsung has actually grown market share in China–you’re the one who repeated the inaccurate article title about Chinese competitors eating their lunch) that ship the same OS, then you’re deeply confused. The platform argument does not make sense when comparing Android competitors, because apps are not developed for “Samsung Android” and “Huawei Android” by third party developers–they’re just developed for “Android.” The platform argument does not make sense when you’re talking about competitors that all use the same platform.
If each of those distinct handset manufacturers had their own platform, your point would be valid, but they do not so it is not. Since they instead use a basically standardized platform, what they really are is just hardware makers competing for customers to buy their phones. They are not platform producers seeking to “lock in” customers into their platform. They want customers locked into Android sure, but unlike Apple these manufacturers do not control their platform or anything so they aren’t squeezing each other out by expanding the platform–only Apple.
Are you actually aware that Huawei, Samsung, LG, HTC etc are primarily all shipping devices on the same platform? Within the same platform the argument you are making does not make any sense at all.
Within the Android space, these platform arguments don’t make a lot of sense. It becomes a lot more like a traditional products manufacturer–like the maker of safety razors.
In the Android market, I see no convincing reason if Samsung say, grows shipments of its Android phones by 5% but loses global market share by 1% that Samsung has anything to worry about. Its shipments, and its revenue, are growing. Yes, it now has more competitors inside the Android ecosystem, but unless it is losing market share to an incumbent with a totally different platform (like Apple or Microsoft) then it’s not really the end of the world if Samsung loses market share but has continued to increase revenue inside of the Android world.
I don’t care about the personal financial situation of other posters. As I said, if there is a number you believe I pulled out of my ass, tell me what number and I’ll give you another source for it.
Exactly. But that’s not what my post was direct at.
Exactly. And I don’t care about China - see anon. What matters is the global market. Also, this discussion was primarily about competing OS’s. That was the topic I was addressing and you seem to be avoiding now that I’ve made it clear that the OS as a platform is critical, especially in the early stages of market development.
That’s nice. So what. China exports most of what it makes.
Why would you assume something as ridiculous as that when everyone, and I do mean EVERYONE know that China is an export driven economy. That is just laughable.
You’re confused since you seem unable to distinguish between hardware and OS. My post about Apple was about their hardware. But since in their case the 2 are really part of the same package you, for some inexplicable reason, assumed I was talking about the OS. Why? It’s not as if iOS is regularly ported to non-Apple hardware. So why would you even make that leap?
What the fuck are you talking about? The platform IS the OS. The OS IS the platform. Obviously I understand that. I made that argument to YOU - remember?
Nothing seems to be making much sense here.
I’ve already address the insignificance of market share vis-a-vis revenue in the mobile market as to the OS side. On the hardware side, I honestly haven’t given that much thought. As I said, I barely follow this industry and don’t try to pretend otherwise.
In post 70 you made some claims about US Android usage but provided no links. I consider that pulling numbers out of your ass. I provided the links in post 71 - you’re welcome.
That would be an incorrect thing to assume. In 2011, the most recent numbers I could find, Huawei makes more than twice as much money outside China than within it, with higher growth overseas as well. ZTE makes a little less than half its money in China. Chinese manufacturers are huge in the entire developing world, which includes a lot of places you wouldn’t think of like rural India and a lot of countries in Africa. This is, incidentally, where Nokia sells most of its devices as well; its Asha line is targeted to this market, and a lot of people are speculating that Microsoft’s play is to get Windows Phone into the developing world to build up platform mindshare from the bottom up, since competing on the high end isn’t getting terribly much traction.
Is that something you consider to be bad?