Android is the first on the market. Now what?
In March last year, I wrote a short note about the prospects and problems of the Android platform , where, among other things, I almost immediately said that in the near future, Android would take a leading role in the smartphone market. And although many commentators questioned this statement, time has shown that I was right. In this note, I want to share my reasoning on how this market will move further and what changes it may have in the future.
It’s probably worth starting with a cold shower for those who are very happy that Android has become the best-selling OS for smartphones, because There is nothing good in this fact for anyone except Google. Why? Because such a quick “success” in the market will most likely have a negative impact on the development and improvement of the system in the future. Just because the leadership positions, both in general and in certain segments, are relaxing, which has been repeatedly confirmed by other companies in the telecommunications sector and in other areas. In many ways, the rapid development and quality of Android, which we saw earlier, can be explained precisely by competition and movement to the first place. Now, most likely, the pace of innovation and development of the platform will decrease significantly, which, among other things, will affect the pace of releases of new versions of the platform.
')
But the problems with Android, as a platform, are still decent, if you do not close your eyes to them due to excessive fanaticism. At the same time, among the problems there are both purely technological, and organizational, or even "political."
Probably the most famous problem is the fragmentation of the platform. Although it may seem to someone that now this problem is already irrelevant, they say Android 2.2 works on more than half of Android devices , but in reality the reality is much worse. For more than a year (not the shortest time, especially in such a dynamic market segment) since the release of the Android 2.2 version (Froyo), this version has taken a share of only 51.8% of the total number of operating Android communicators. Moreover, today it has already ceased to be the newest, after all, Android 2.3 (Gingerbread) was released. Of course, you can nod at manufacturers-operators who are slowing down with updates, but nobody else has allowed this situation to be formed by Google, but we will not discuss this now.
Fragmentation of the platform, by the way, manifests itself not only as fragmentation into different versions, which is usually talked about, but also as a “fragmentation” of the system on the version of specific manufacturers. Yes, in general, the system remains the same, and most importantly in most cases it is still compatible with third-party applications from the Android Market, but the intervention of manufacturers with their own branded shells is quite strongly spreading Android through the camps of individual manufacturers in terms of UX. Although the producers with their motives can also be understood, especially since they do it not from a good life. And this is one of the components of the common Android problem as a system, which I will mention later.
Another problem is the problem of Android - the problem of the software market for it, which is far from the best condition. It's not about the number of "heads" in the Android Market store, but rather about its work as a store. The store is littered with a lot of second-and third-grade software, but this is far from the biggest problem. The problem is that it is very difficult for third-party developers to earn money in the Android Market. There are many reasons for this: the availability of the opportunity to return money for the application, a huge level of piracy, the unwillingness of users to pay for applications, etc., etc. What do we see in the end? Much of the developers are trying to make money on advertising embedded in the software. Serious software developers, however, are not very eager to release versions of their applications in the Android Market, some even sell applications outside of it. The best performance is that a company such as Amazon started creating its own store for Android applications , and Google began to move to improve the situation with the Android Market - time will show how successful it is.
So what is the main problem with Android, which forces manufacturers to work this way (to put it mildly, not the best situation with updates, installing crapware and branded shells, etc.), how do they work? The fact is that a significant, if not big, part of the manufacturers of Android smartphones earn very little money from them. This can best be illustrated with information from Asymco for the fourth quarter of 2010.
Slightly higher, you can observe the redistribution of shares of profits among eight manufacturers of mobile phones. How can I make a conclusion from this graph? The only manufacturers of Android devices that receive a normal profit from them are HTC and Samsung, and you can't be so categorical at the expense of Samsung. for her, Android smartphones are far from being the only products in the mobile phone sector. But even if Samsung is counted, it is easy to see that such a huge colossus as Samsung has a profit share of just over two times more from such a small, in comparison with the rest, companies like HTC. LG, Motorola and Sony Ericsson, as another manufacturer of many popular Android smartphones, earn almost nothing from their work. The overwhelming share of the profits come from companies that manufacture products that operate under their platform - Apple, Nokia and RIM.
Manufacturers of Android devices receive quite small money from each phone sold. It is for this reason that we "have what we have." Manufacturers are ready to preinstall non-removable crapware on them for a couple of extra dollars from the tube, they cannot and do not want to devote attention, time and resources to software updates and, most importantly, are busy developing branded shells. And then the shell - you ask? The fact is that these manufacturers, in their attempts to make a profit when selling devices, need to create some added value that would make the device better for the buyer, allowing you to request more money for it. In addition, to improve sales, the manufacturer wants to differentiate their products from those of a competitor, so that they differ in the eyes of the buyer. How often when reading the characteristics of a new Android smartphone, do you have a feeling of deja vu? The display resolution is 800 x 480 pixels, a processor with a frequency of 1 GHz and 512 MB of RAM, Android 2.2 on board, and so on - from the point of view of a significant part of the technical characteristics, most of the devices are the very bad from the point of view competition because impersonal the device, and manufacturers turns into the sad collectors of the same type of products, the only distinctive factor of which is the price, which, in this case, rushes down.
It is for differentiating their products that manufacturers develop casings because This allows you to more strongly distinguish your products from competitors. Does HTC Sense look much like Samsung TouchWiz or MotoBlur? That's the thing. Nevertheless, the profit from a particular phone still remains low, so the main rate of manufacturers is to frequently change models, even if there are no significant differences between them, in order to sell more and more new phones to a person. That is why most of the Android devices, at the moment, will never wait for updates - the manufacturer has earned so little by selling the device, where there is still an update to do, it is better to try to sell the customer a new phone. Moreover, the development of the update really takes a decent amount of time and resources, at least for thorough testing of everything and everything.
It is the rate of manufacturers to replace the phone with a new model, rather than updating the software of the existing device, and causes the situation with Android version fragmentation - the share of older versions, in most cases, will be replaced by a large volume (after all, the smartphone market is growing dynamically) of newer devices sold immediately with a newer version of Android. Exceptions to this “flawed” practice are perhaps the release of updates for some models, which have already sold out very large quantities (in relation to a particular manufacturer) and which will not take as long to update (since updating one model for many customers), which can be seen on the example of the Motorola Droid. Another exception is the devices that are released shortly after the release of the next version of Android (for example, entering the Android 2.1 phone market two months after the release of Android 2.2) - they can get an update just so that these devices do not seem outdated to customers after a couple of months when other manufacturers roll out devices with more current software to the market.
These and other problems of Android as a mobile platform, most likely, can be solved one way or another, but whether they will work on them seriously, especially after Android has taken a fairly strong position, this is a big question. The main beneficiary of this platform, its developers, is already more than satisfied with everything, because it performs its function. Money is earned from displaying advertising and using proprietary services, and not from selling licenses to the system to manufacturers.
In any case, in the short term, although not so fast, but the share of Android will continue to grow at the expense of RIM and Nokia, which, so far, simply have nothing to oppose in terms of modern mobile platforms. Anyway, other than Apple iOS, only Windows Phone 7 from Microsoft and webOS from HP can act as a real competitor for Android (but a miracle should happen here). It is Windows Phone 7 that may in the future take away a rather wide part of the market from Android. Although the launch of the Windows Phone 7 platform cannot be called super successful , it is worth remembering that Android did not start gaining popularity from day one, especially since the two million licenses for Windows Phone 7 were sold to manufacturers.
At the same time, there are a lot of factors on the Microsoft side, many factors from which are aimed at manufacturers, not just buyers. Here you can recall the simpler process of developing smartphones for Windows Phone 7, and the support of Microsoft in promoting devices, and more dense work with manufacturers and developers (Microsoft even collaborates with the creators of the jailbreak for its platform ). You can even recall the painful lack of problems with patents, which is not shining to the manufacturers of Android devices, unlike the manufacturers of Windows Phone 7 smartphones. In general, there was already information that some companies in the near future will pay more attention to devices with Windows Phone 7 than their Android counterparts.
For users, Windows Phone 7 devices can provide quite a lot of what Android now cannot boast, including a good level of mobile gaming (Xbox Live is an excellent platform promotion tool in this regard) and a good level of MS Office support (for many it’s important to work). ), and most importantly - an excellent level of "polished" system software on the phone.
Of course, everything will depend on the efforts of Google and Microsoft, but I can quite allow the situation that within a couple of years Windows Phone will force Android out of the high and medium segments of smartphones, where the cost of a software license for a manufacturer will have little effect on anything. Although the situation is quite possible that Microsoft is all “zafeit”, finally losing the mobile market, but judging by their mood, they do not intend to allow this, at all costs. What is your opinion?
It’s probably worth starting with a cold shower for those who are very happy that Android has become the best-selling OS for smartphones, because There is nothing good in this fact for anyone except Google. Why? Because such a quick “success” in the market will most likely have a negative impact on the development and improvement of the system in the future. Just because the leadership positions, both in general and in certain segments, are relaxing, which has been repeatedly confirmed by other companies in the telecommunications sector and in other areas. In many ways, the rapid development and quality of Android, which we saw earlier, can be explained precisely by competition and movement to the first place. Now, most likely, the pace of innovation and development of the platform will decrease significantly, which, among other things, will affect the pace of releases of new versions of the platform.
')
But the problems with Android, as a platform, are still decent, if you do not close your eyes to them due to excessive fanaticism. At the same time, among the problems there are both purely technological, and organizational, or even "political."
Probably the most famous problem is the fragmentation of the platform. Although it may seem to someone that now this problem is already irrelevant, they say Android 2.2 works on more than half of Android devices , but in reality the reality is much worse. For more than a year (not the shortest time, especially in such a dynamic market segment) since the release of the Android 2.2 version (Froyo), this version has taken a share of only 51.8% of the total number of operating Android communicators. Moreover, today it has already ceased to be the newest, after all, Android 2.3 (Gingerbread) was released. Of course, you can nod at manufacturers-operators who are slowing down with updates, but nobody else has allowed this situation to be formed by Google, but we will not discuss this now.
Fragmentation of the platform, by the way, manifests itself not only as fragmentation into different versions, which is usually talked about, but also as a “fragmentation” of the system on the version of specific manufacturers. Yes, in general, the system remains the same, and most importantly in most cases it is still compatible with third-party applications from the Android Market, but the intervention of manufacturers with their own branded shells is quite strongly spreading Android through the camps of individual manufacturers in terms of UX. Although the producers with their motives can also be understood, especially since they do it not from a good life. And this is one of the components of the common Android problem as a system, which I will mention later.
Another problem is the problem of Android - the problem of the software market for it, which is far from the best condition. It's not about the number of "heads" in the Android Market store, but rather about its work as a store. The store is littered with a lot of second-and third-grade software, but this is far from the biggest problem. The problem is that it is very difficult for third-party developers to earn money in the Android Market. There are many reasons for this: the availability of the opportunity to return money for the application, a huge level of piracy, the unwillingness of users to pay for applications, etc., etc. What do we see in the end? Much of the developers are trying to make money on advertising embedded in the software. Serious software developers, however, are not very eager to release versions of their applications in the Android Market, some even sell applications outside of it. The best performance is that a company such as Amazon started creating its own store for Android applications , and Google began to move to improve the situation with the Android Market - time will show how successful it is.
So what is the main problem with Android, which forces manufacturers to work this way (to put it mildly, not the best situation with updates, installing crapware and branded shells, etc.), how do they work? The fact is that a significant, if not big, part of the manufacturers of Android smartphones earn very little money from them. This can best be illustrated with information from Asymco for the fourth quarter of 2010.
Slightly higher, you can observe the redistribution of shares of profits among eight manufacturers of mobile phones. How can I make a conclusion from this graph? The only manufacturers of Android devices that receive a normal profit from them are HTC and Samsung, and you can't be so categorical at the expense of Samsung. for her, Android smartphones are far from being the only products in the mobile phone sector. But even if Samsung is counted, it is easy to see that such a huge colossus as Samsung has a profit share of just over two times more from such a small, in comparison with the rest, companies like HTC. LG, Motorola and Sony Ericsson, as another manufacturer of many popular Android smartphones, earn almost nothing from their work. The overwhelming share of the profits come from companies that manufacture products that operate under their platform - Apple, Nokia and RIM.
Manufacturers of Android devices receive quite small money from each phone sold. It is for this reason that we "have what we have." Manufacturers are ready to preinstall non-removable crapware on them for a couple of extra dollars from the tube, they cannot and do not want to devote attention, time and resources to software updates and, most importantly, are busy developing branded shells. And then the shell - you ask? The fact is that these manufacturers, in their attempts to make a profit when selling devices, need to create some added value that would make the device better for the buyer, allowing you to request more money for it. In addition, to improve sales, the manufacturer wants to differentiate their products from those of a competitor, so that they differ in the eyes of the buyer. How often when reading the characteristics of a new Android smartphone, do you have a feeling of deja vu? The display resolution is 800 x 480 pixels, a processor with a frequency of 1 GHz and 512 MB of RAM, Android 2.2 on board, and so on - from the point of view of a significant part of the technical characteristics, most of the devices are the very bad from the point of view competition because impersonal the device, and manufacturers turns into the sad collectors of the same type of products, the only distinctive factor of which is the price, which, in this case, rushes down.
It is for differentiating their products that manufacturers develop casings because This allows you to more strongly distinguish your products from competitors. Does HTC Sense look much like Samsung TouchWiz or MotoBlur? That's the thing. Nevertheless, the profit from a particular phone still remains low, so the main rate of manufacturers is to frequently change models, even if there are no significant differences between them, in order to sell more and more new phones to a person. That is why most of the Android devices, at the moment, will never wait for updates - the manufacturer has earned so little by selling the device, where there is still an update to do, it is better to try to sell the customer a new phone. Moreover, the development of the update really takes a decent amount of time and resources, at least for thorough testing of everything and everything.
It is the rate of manufacturers to replace the phone with a new model, rather than updating the software of the existing device, and causes the situation with Android version fragmentation - the share of older versions, in most cases, will be replaced by a large volume (after all, the smartphone market is growing dynamically) of newer devices sold immediately with a newer version of Android. Exceptions to this “flawed” practice are perhaps the release of updates for some models, which have already sold out very large quantities (in relation to a particular manufacturer) and which will not take as long to update (since updating one model for many customers), which can be seen on the example of the Motorola Droid. Another exception is the devices that are released shortly after the release of the next version of Android (for example, entering the Android 2.1 phone market two months after the release of Android 2.2) - they can get an update just so that these devices do not seem outdated to customers after a couple of months when other manufacturers roll out devices with more current software to the market.
These and other problems of Android as a mobile platform, most likely, can be solved one way or another, but whether they will work on them seriously, especially after Android has taken a fairly strong position, this is a big question. The main beneficiary of this platform, its developers, is already more than satisfied with everything, because it performs its function. Money is earned from displaying advertising and using proprietary services, and not from selling licenses to the system to manufacturers.
In any case, in the short term, although not so fast, but the share of Android will continue to grow at the expense of RIM and Nokia, which, so far, simply have nothing to oppose in terms of modern mobile platforms. Anyway, other than Apple iOS, only Windows Phone 7 from Microsoft and webOS from HP can act as a real competitor for Android (but a miracle should happen here). It is Windows Phone 7 that may in the future take away a rather wide part of the market from Android. Although the launch of the Windows Phone 7 platform cannot be called super successful , it is worth remembering that Android did not start gaining popularity from day one, especially since the two million licenses for Windows Phone 7 were sold to manufacturers.
At the same time, there are a lot of factors on the Microsoft side, many factors from which are aimed at manufacturers, not just buyers. Here you can recall the simpler process of developing smartphones for Windows Phone 7, and the support of Microsoft in promoting devices, and more dense work with manufacturers and developers (Microsoft even collaborates with the creators of the jailbreak for its platform ). You can even recall the painful lack of problems with patents, which is not shining to the manufacturers of Android devices, unlike the manufacturers of Windows Phone 7 smartphones. In general, there was already information that some companies in the near future will pay more attention to devices with Windows Phone 7 than their Android counterparts.
For users, Windows Phone 7 devices can provide quite a lot of what Android now cannot boast, including a good level of mobile gaming (Xbox Live is an excellent platform promotion tool in this regard) and a good level of MS Office support (for many it’s important to work). ), and most importantly - an excellent level of "polished" system software on the phone.
Of course, everything will depend on the efforts of Google and Microsoft, but I can quite allow the situation that within a couple of years Windows Phone will force Android out of the high and medium segments of smartphones, where the cost of a software license for a manufacturer will have little effect on anything. Although the situation is quite possible that Microsoft is all “zafeit”, finally losing the mobile market, but judging by their mood, they do not intend to allow this, at all costs. What is your opinion?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/113049/
All Articles