Guest wellmont Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 good phone from Google, $99, no contract, no subsidy. would hate to be dependent on the antiquated way of doing business... http://www.bestbuy.com/site/motorola-moto-g-4g-lte-no-contract-cell-phone/3041063.p;jsessionid=399B11C65A88D6D14C92CCAC9B19B2E4.bbolsp-app04-142?id=1219086346405&skuId=3041063&st=moto%20g&cp=1&lp=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 good phone from Google, $99, no contract, no subsidy. would hate to be dependent on the antiquated way of doing business... http://www.bestbuy.com/site/motorola-moto-g-4g-lte-no-contract-cell-phone/3041063.p;jsessionid=399B11C65A88D6D14C92CCAC9B19B2E4.bbolsp-app04-142?id=1219086346405&skuId=3041063&st=moto%20g&cp=1&lp=1 Yeah, making profits is sooooo antiquated. This is the new economy ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frommi Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 good phone from Google, $99, no contract, no subsidy. would hate to be dependent on the antiquated way of doing business... http://www.bestbuy.com/site/motorola-moto-g-4g-lte-no-contract-cell-phone/3041063.p;jsessionid=399B11C65A88D6D14C92CCAC9B19B2E4.bbolsp-app04-142?id=1219086346405&skuId=3041063&st=moto%20g&cp=1&lp=1 I am really interested how long Apple can sell smartphones for >600$, when there are alternatives selling for 100$. I made that step 1.5 years ago and found everything i needed for free on Android. (IPhone4->S3) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wellmont Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 good phone from Google, $99, no contract, no subsidy. would hate to be dependent on the antiquated way of doing business... http://www.bestbuy.com/site/motorola-moto-g-4g-lte-no-contract-cell-phone/3041063.p;jsessionid=399B11C65A88D6D14C92CCAC9B19B2E4.bbolsp-app04-142?id=1219086346405&skuId=3041063&st=moto%20g&cp=1&lp=1 I am really interested how long Apple can sell smartphones for >600$, when there are alternatives selling for 100$. I made that step 1.5 years ago and found everything i needed for free on Android. (IPhone4->S3) I see you are thinking ahead. but the problem seems to becoming more and more obvious no? with $600 phones you can see how dependent aapl is on the subsidy model. for their sake I hope that model won't change anytime soon. But there is a clear trend that the cost of service is being unbundled from the device. this is a change... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frommi Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Yeah, making profits is sooooo antiquated. This is the new economy ;) GOOG doesn`t need to make profits from the smartphone business as long as they grow the advertising market that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted January 3, 2014 Author Share Posted January 3, 2014 good phone from Google, $99, no contract, no subsidy. would hate to be dependent on the antiquated way of doing business... http://www.bestbuy.com/site/motorola-moto-g-4g-lte-no-contract-cell-phone/3041063.p;jsessionid=399B11C65A88D6D14C92CCAC9B19B2E4.bbolsp-app04-142?id=1219086346405&skuId=3041063&st=moto%20g&cp=1&lp=1 I am really interested how long Apple can sell smartphones for >600$, when there are alternatives selling for 100$. I made that step 1.5 years ago and found everything i needed for free on Android. (IPhone4->S3) As long as they have a top-quality differentiated products and people trust the brand, like Nike or Porsche. Prices will come down slowly over time, but volumes will go up a lot too. Still hundreds of millions of people without a smartphone or tablet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZenaidaMacroura Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 good phone from Google, $99, no contract, no subsidy. would hate to be dependent on the antiquated way of doing business... http://www.bestbuy.com/site/motorola-moto-g-4g-lte-no-contract-cell-phone/3041063.p;jsessionid=399B11C65A88D6D14C92CCAC9B19B2E4.bbolsp-app04-142?id=1219086346405&skuId=3041063&st=moto%20g&cp=1&lp=1 I am really interested how long Apple can sell smartphones for >600$, when there are alternatives selling for 100$. I made that step 1.5 years ago and found everything i needed for free on Android. (IPhone4->S3) I am similarly interested in how anyone buys overpriced stocks when there are alternative stocks that are underpriced... It's easy to question the raison d'être of inefficiencies that we do not benefit from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 good phone from Google, $99, no contract, no subsidy. would hate to be dependent on the antiquated way of doing business... http://www.bestbuy.com/site/motorola-moto-g-4g-lte-no-contract-cell-phone/3041063.p;jsessionid=399B11C65A88D6D14C92CCAC9B19B2E4.bbolsp-app04-142?id=1219086346405&skuId=3041063&st=moto%20g&cp=1&lp=1 I am really interested how long Apple can sell smartphones for >600$, when there are alternatives selling for 100$. I made that step 1.5 years ago and found everything i needed for free on Android. (IPhone4->S3) This will help: http://iterativepath.wordpress.com/2014/01/02/marketing-pricing-and-value-a-black-friday-story/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frommi Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 I am similarly interested in how anyone buys overpriced stocks when there are alternative stocks that are underpriced... It's easy to question the raison d'être of inefficiencies that we do not benefit from. in the long run ... ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Yeah, making profits is sooooo antiquated. This is the new economy ;) GOOG doesn`t need to make profits from the smartphone business as long as they grow the advertising market that way. This: http://www.wirelessweek.com/news/2014/01/apples-ios-pummels-android-mobile-shopping-report 1, The theory is that Google gives away Android for free and subsidizes devices to win marketshare and make money from Android advertising. 2, But the people spending money and buying things are mostly on iOS. So CMOs are spending money on Android ads even though the real buyers are on iOS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frommi Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 2, But the people spending money and buying things are mostly on iOS. So CMOs are spending money on Android ads even though the real buyers are on iOS? And where are the ads hosted through which those sales are done? Does it matter for Google if this ad was shown on an android or ios based device? Google has a great business, but the management has not that great capital allocation skills and its currently much to expensive. When they would buyback shares and pay dividends instead of buying roboting vendors and develop self driving cars GOOG would be a really great stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 2, But the people spending money and buying things are mostly on iOS. So CMOs are spending money on Android ads even though the real buyers are on iOS? And where are the ads hosted through which those sales are done? Does it matter for Google if this ad was shown on an android or ios based device? If it doesn't why spend $13 B on Motorla and lose an additional billion every year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frommi Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 If it doesn't why spend $13 B on Motorla and lose an additional billion every year? Yes, as i edited in my post the management has really bad capital allocation skills. When i would lead GOOG, i would stop all not relevant projects, throw out half the workforce and spinoff all the shit that has nothing to do with the advertising business. Its probably a better idea to let Microsoft do the sell-cheap-smartphones business at the current point in time. But oops that could mean Bing gets a greater marketshare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worldaccordingtoGARP Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Yeah, making profits is sooooo antiquated. This is the new economy ;) GOOG doesn`t need to make profits from the smartphone business as long as they grow the advertising market that way. This: http://www.wirelessweek.com/news/2014/01/apples-ios-pummels-android-mobile-shopping-report 1, The theory is that Google gives away Android for free and subsidizes devices to win marketshare and make money from Android advertising. 2, But the people spending money and buying things are mostly on iOS. So CMOs are spending money on Android ads even though the real buyers are on iOS? This was true; it no longer is. There's also good reason to think spending on Google will accelerate in 2014: "User spending on Google Play catching up with Apple’s App Store" http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b3023dda-66be-11e3-aa10-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2pMSqabEZ Google has narrowed the gap with Apple in the amount spent on apps by users of its Android system this year, even though users of Apple’s iPhone and iPad remain the biggest spenders on digital content.... Average daily combined spending on the 200 apps that generate the most revenue on Apple’s App store rose from $15m to $18m over the past year, Distimo estimates, while Google’s equivalent almost quadrupled over the same period, from $3.5m to $12m.... “The Apple App Store is still leading in terms of total revenue,” said Distimo analyst Christel Schoger. “However, during 2013 Google Play’s piece of the pie was consistently increasing month over month.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 Yeah, making profits is sooooo antiquated. This is the new economy ;) GOOG doesn`t need to make profits from the smartphone business as long as they grow the advertising market that way. This: http://www.wirelessweek.com/news/2014/01/apples-ios-pummels-android-mobile-shopping-report 1, The theory is that Google gives away Android for free and subsidizes devices to win marketshare and make money from Android advertising. 2, But the people spending money and buying things are mostly on iOS. So CMOs are spending money on Android ads even though the real buyers are on iOS? This was true; it no longer is. There's also good reason to think spending on Google will accelerate in 2014: "User spending on Google Play catching up with Apple’s App Store" http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b3023dda-66be-11e3-aa10-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2pMSqabEZ Google has narrowed the gap with Apple in the amount spent on apps by users of its Android system this year, even though users of Apple’s iPhone and iPad remain the biggest spenders on digital content.... Average daily combined spending on the 200 apps that generate the most revenue on Apple’s App store rose from $15m to $18m over the past year, Distimo estimates, while Google’s equivalent almost quadrupled over the same period, from $3.5m to $12m.... “The Apple App Store is still leading in terms of total revenue,” said Distimo analyst Christel Schoger. “However, during 2013 Google Play’s piece of the pie was consistently increasing month over month.” This is about ad spending, not app spending. Regarding app spending, one of Android's biggest markets was Japan. With the launch of NTT Docomo, Apple was tracking at 76% of the market last month. So we'll see how long Play's spending holds up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 If it doesn't why spend $13 B on Motorla and lose an additional billion every year? Yes, as i edited in my post the management has really bad capital allocation skills. When i would lead GOOG, i would stop all not relevant projects, throw out half the workforce and spinoff all the shit that has nothing to do with the advertising business. Its probably a better idea to let Microsoft do the sell-cheap-smartphones business at the current point in time. But oops that could mean Bing gets a greater marketshare. This is more than capital allocation. If you pick a wrong strategic direction, the longer your follow that path, the more you compound your mistakes. At some point there is no turning back. Case in point - Microsoft. Do they stick their course with Windows 8? If so, they risk going from 90% share on desktops to the teens in mobile. Do they give away their OS for free while losing money on devices the same time to gain marketshare? Do they co-opt Android and risk losing it all? There are simply no good choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VAL9000 Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 As long as they have a top-quality differentiated products and people trust the brand, like Nike or Porsche. Prices will come down slowly over time, but volumes will go up a lot too. Still hundreds of millions of people without a smartphone or tablet. The premium segment analogy is seriously flawed. The problem is that Nike and Porsche are not platforms. The road is the platform. Roads are the same everywhere, regardless if you buy a Porsche or a Kia. This is not true of iOS and Android. They are incompatible platforms that divine network effects independent of one another. This is relevant because of the lollapalooza effect that winning platforms generate. Developers will prefer the platform that offers the highest bang for the buck. If the number of Android devices makes up 90%+ of the market, if "spenders" move to the Android platform, if the overall UI gets better, if the dev tools are better... then the iPhone will likely become de-prioritized in app development. Customers go where the greatest bang for the buck is, too.. Lower price, best experience, most/newest apps, etc. The higher volume on both sides leads to lower prices on both sides. All these good things occur inside the walls of the leading platform. The benefits don't cross over like better highways or cheaper gasoline improve both BMW and Hyundai's position. I prefer the analogy of VHS vs. Beta. Incompatible platforms. Beta was better but more expensive. VHS was lower quality but cheaper. One company made the Beta player. Multiple companies could make a VHS player. Seems like a relevant analogy today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LC Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 good phone from Google, $99, no contract, no subsidy. would hate to be dependent on the antiquated way of doing business... http://www.bestbuy.com/site/motorola-moto-g-4g-lte-no-contract-cell-phone/3041063.p;jsessionid=399B11C65A88D6D14C92CCAC9B19B2E4.bbolsp-app04-142?id=1219086346405&skuId=3041063&st=moto%20g&cp=1&lp=1 I am really interested how long Apple can sell smartphones for >600$, when there are alternatives selling for 100$. I made that step 1.5 years ago and found everything i needed for free on Android. (IPhone4->S3) As long as people will buy them! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 As long as they have a top-quality differentiated products and people trust the brand, like Nike or Porsche. Prices will come down slowly over time, but volumes will go up a lot too. Still hundreds of millions of people without a smartphone or tablet. The premium segment analogy is seriously flawed. The problem is that Nike and Porsche are not platforms. The road is the platform. Roads are the same everywhere, regardless if you buy a Porsche or a Kia. This is not true of iOS and Android. They are incompatible platforms that divine network effects independent of one another. This is relevant because of the lollapalooza effect that winning platforms generate. Developers will prefer the platform that offers the highest bang for the buck. If the number of Android devices makes up 90%+ of the market, if "spenders" move to the Android platform, if the overall UI gets better, if the dev tools are better... then the iPhone will likely become de-prioritized in app development. Customers go where the greatest bang for the buck is, too.. Lower price, best experience, most/newest apps, etc. The higher volume on both sides leads to lower prices on both sides. All these good things occur inside the walls of the leading platform. The benefits don't cross over like better highways or cheaper gasoline improve both BMW and Hyundai's position. I prefer the analogy of VHS vs. Beta. Incompatible platforms. Beta was better but more expensive. VHS was lower quality but cheaper. One company made the Beta player. Multiple companies could make a VHS player. Seems like a relevant analogy today. If you are going to bang for the buck - Android is no comparison to iOS. Everything from fragmentation increasing development, low usage per user, low spending per user, etc reduce the ROI for third parties. As far as VHS vs beta - beta never gave rise to the most profitable business on the planet. See my post on reasoning by analogies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worldaccordingtoGARP Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 As long as they have a top-quality differentiated products and people trust the brand, like Nike or Porsche. Prices will come down slowly over time, but volumes will go up a lot too. Still hundreds of millions of people without a smartphone or tablet. The premium segment analogy is seriously flawed. The problem is that Nike and Porsche are not platforms. The road is the platform. Roads are the same everywhere, regardless if you buy a Porsche or a Kia. This is not true of iOS and Android. They are incompatible platforms that divine network effects independent of one another. This is relevant because of the lollapalooza effect that winning platforms generate. Developers will prefer the platform that offers the highest bang for the buck. If the number of Android devices makes up 90%+ of the market, if "spenders" move to the Android platform, if the overall UI gets better, if the dev tools are better... then the iPhone will likely become de-prioritized in app development. Customers go where the greatest bang for the buck is, too.. Lower price, best experience, most/newest apps, etc. The higher volume on both sides leads to lower prices on both sides. All these good things occur inside the walls of the leading platform. The benefits don't cross over like better highways or cheaper gasoline improve both BMW and Hyundai's position. I prefer the analogy of VHS vs. Beta. Incompatible platforms. Beta was better but more expensive. VHS was lower quality but cheaper. One company made the Beta player. Multiple companies could make a VHS player. Seems like a relevant analogy today. Nicely said, completely agree, though not sure the need is as absolute for all-or-nothing in the OS. It certainly helps to have dominant share and it is a waterfall effect of sorts. 1 more point worth making is that almost everyone who uses an iOS device also uses many Google products, from search to gmail to YouTube (ah that pesky damn site that disproves all these negatives slung at Google). People who use Android devices use no Google whatsoever. These are both Trojan horses and levers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VAL9000 Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 If you are going to bang for the buck - Android is no comparison to iOS. Everything from fragmentation increasing development, low usage per user, low spending per user, etc reduce the ROI for third parties. Today this is true, but Android is improving very quickly and prices are dropping very quickly, too. I can buy a Nexus 5 and a Nexus 7 for the same price as an iPhone 5s and still have money left over to convert all of my apps from iOS to Android. Not bad. As far as VHS vs beta - beta never gave rise to the most profitable business on the planet. See my post on reasoning by analogies. Reasoning by analogy can be perfectly safe. I think the real problem is when you believe something is so precious and unique that it has no relevant analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 If you are going to bang for the buck - Android is no comparison to iOS. Everything from fragmentation increasing development, low usage per user, low spending per user, etc reduce the ROI for third parties. Today this is true, but Android is improving very quickly and prices are dropping very quickly, too. I can buy a Nexus 5 and a Nexus 7 for the same price as an iPhone 5s and still have money left over to convert all of my apps from iOS to Android. Not bad. I'm talking about developer ROI. Oh and BTW: http://chitika.com/insights/2014/holiday-mobile-update As far as VHS vs beta - beta never gave rise to the most profitable business on the planet. See my post on reasoning by analogies. Reasoning by analogy can be perfectly safe. I think the real problem is when you believe something is so precious and unique that it has no relevant analogy. You compared mobile devices to roads. Seriously? When was the last time you made a buying decision on roads? Are roads a competitive free market? Are they a monopoly? How many times have you spent money on a road? Is there ever any time you have had a choice between road A made by one company and a road B made by another? Do roads have brands? What price can you charge when you set up a toll on a road? Here's another example of bad reasoning by analogy: My argument against the intrusiveness factor is that, if I'm not mistaken, cellphones had the same hurdle to overcome when they first started selling widely. At the time, people thought it was pretty rude, inconsiderate and weird that folks would talk in public at a device. So since cellphones have succeeded, can conclude that every new technology will succeed? Need I point out the 100s of failed technologies for every one that succeeded? Can we assume the Galaxy Gear to be a guaranteed success because of cellphones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VAL9000 Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 If you are going to bang for the buck - Android is no comparison to iOS. Everything from fragmentation increasing development, low usage per user, low spending per user, etc reduce the ROI for third parties. Today this is true, but Android is improving very quickly and prices are dropping very quickly, too. I can buy a Nexus 5 and a Nexus 7 for the same price as an iPhone 5s and still have money left over to convert all of my apps from iOS to Android. Not bad. I'm talking about developer ROI. Oh and BTW: http://chitika.com/insights/2014/holiday-mobile-update So no rebuttal on Android improving very quickly? Glad we agree there. I guess we'll see how consumers choose to vote with their wallets. You compared mobile devices to roads. Seriously? When was the last time you made a buying decision on roads? Are roads a competitive free market? Are they a monopoly? How many times have you spent money on a road? Is there ever any time you have had a choice between road A made by one company and a road B made by another? Do roads have brands? What price can you charge when you set up a toll on a road? I actually compared mobile platforms to roads in the context of device brands as car brands, but this is exactly my point. The luxury car brand analogy is a poor one, in part due to the platform issues you brought up here. Thank you for your constructive examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 If you are going to bang for the buck - Android is no comparison to iOS. Everything from fragmentation increasing development, low usage per user, low spending per user, etc reduce the ROI for third parties. Today this is true, but Android is improving very quickly and prices are dropping very quickly, too. I can buy a Nexus 5 and a Nexus 7 for the same price as an iPhone 5s and still have money left over to convert all of my apps from iOS to Android. Not bad. I'm talking about developer ROI. Oh and BTW: http://chitika.com/insights/2014/holiday-mobile-update So no rebuttal on Android improving very quickly? Glad we agree there. I guess we'll see how consumers choose to vote with their wallets. If you want one: - No fingerprint sensor support - No 64 bit support - No functionality like eyes free - No gamecontroller api - Poor designs - Poor upgradability - Poor security - No quality control on the app store (http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/02/developer-spams-google-play-with-ripoffs-of-well-known-apps-again/) I could go on and on - Android may be improving, but the iPhone is improving quicker. Even the folks in Samsung agree: http://venturebeat.com/2014/01/03/samsung-chairman-we-need-to-dump-old-habits-and-start-innovating-around-the-clock/ http://www.htc.com/assets-desktop/images/softwareupdates/HTC-Anatomy-of-an-Android.jpg And people are voting with their wallets, as you can see in the Chitka link. You compared mobile devices to roads. Seriously? When was the last time you made a buying decision on roads? Are roads a competitive free market? Are they a monopoly? How many times have you spent money on a road? Is there ever any time you have had a choice between road A made by one company and a road B made by another? Do roads have brands? What price can you charge when you set up a toll on a road? I actually compared mobile platforms to roads in the context of device brands as car brands, but this is exactly my point. The luxury car brand analogy is a poor one, in part due to the platform issues you brought up here. Thank you for your constructive examples. So you think the road analogy is a better one? Roads - which are not really something you buy, roads - which are not really a product. Why not compare mobile devices to taxes? That would make just as much sense. BTW, cars are platforms too. I use cars as a simplification for people who just can't wrap their heads around the concept of segmentation. Look around you, you will find hundreds of products that people pay a premium for even though they have the same "features" - clothing, wine, food, pens, jewelry, etc. Ask Buffet why he bought Sees candy. Take a look at services - doctors, lawyers, hedge fund managers, etc. People still pay atrocious amount of money. They are not getting commoditized and they are not getting disrupted. This is gone on for decades if not centuries. Even When it comes to tech platforms, people pay a premium. Example - Oracle, AWS, SAP, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCG Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 If you are going to bang for the buck - Android is no comparison to iOS. Everything from fragmentation increasing development, low usage per user, low spending per user, etc reduce the ROI for third parties. Today this is true, but Android is improving very quickly and prices are dropping very quickly, too. I can buy a Nexus 5 and a Nexus 7 for the same price as an iPhone 5s and still have money left over to convert all of my apps from iOS to Android. Not bad. You can do that, but did you? Lots of people can buy cheap Android devices, but they still stick to the more expensive and better product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now