It's also seriously substandard. That's why Microsoft is abandoning it and restarting with WP7.
Windows Phone 7 builds on that expectation, that power of the hardware will continue accelerating, and so build a phone OS that expects that.
It's an incomplete, substandard also-ran in a market already owned by Android and iOS.
Can you find me a Netbook that doesn't come pre-loaded (at least as an option) with Windows? ... I see smartbooks cannibalizing low-end netbooks and tablets, not so much notebooks and desktop PCs
Good point. They are mostly running Windows. Too bad the iPad alone is cannibalizing up to 50% of notebook sales. Imagine when competitive Android tablets hit the market. Whoops.
Yet Google makes more profit on its revenue than Apple. Android taking that big of a chunk of the smartphone market makes them just that much more money.
Exactly how much of Google's revenue is Android-based?
Smart move, indeed!
Unfortunately, not so good for innovation.
MSFT is most likely looking to compete 3 years from now, when 2 GHz dual-core ARMs and 1 GB RAM phones are ubiquitous, and WP7 has matured and added more features.
Ah, the old loss leader approach. How innovative. Incapable of profitably even maintaining a position in a market I see. I know another company that's fully capable of profiting immediately in even a brand-new market. That's the company I'm more impressed with.
Of course by then iOS will be at v.5 at least, and Android should be at version 4, both much more capable than WP7. Well, that depends on how much Microsoft steals from the others I guess. I certainly don't expect innovation.
My own "Gartner thread" prediction was that Nokia still holds the lead at around 35%, Android at about the same, WP7 around 15%, iOS about 10%, and RIM and everyone else with that last 5%.
Windows so high? It's going to hit the market as a FAR INFERIOR product to both iOS and Android, and it won't be able to use Microsoft's classic move of leveraging compatibility with legacy products. You may be right though. Microsoft already strong-armed HTC with patent threats over Android. Maybe that's their plan for dominance. I certainly don't see a plan to dominate through a superior product.
Four years ago, the market was owned by Nokia and RIM (and still is, to a large extent). iOS (or whatever it was called back then) was incomplete, lacking, and substandard. And 2 years later, it was a big factor.
Two years ago, The market was well-split between Nokia, RIM and iOS. Android was incomplete, lacking, missing a lot of functionality. Now it's second in the US only to RIM, and third in the world behind Symbian and RIM (having passed iOS).
Two years seems to be the time it takes a "substandard upstart" to make serious move in the phone market. Unless you're claiming the market will stay static?
Good point. They are mostly running Windows. Too bad the iPad alone is cannibalizing up to 50% of notebook sales. Imagine when competitive Android tablets hit the market. Whoops.
Best Buy does not represent the market. And the laptop and desktop - the PC - market is still growing at 24% annually. Even if tablets are taking some of the market, the rest is still growing mightily fast. You seem to forget that...;)
Exactly how much of Google's revenue is Android-based?
Considering about 25% of all ads shown on phones are Google ads, and on the Android platform, that's got to be a decent amount.
Last numbers I remember seeing were about $75 million last year for ad revenue for Google. And it's supposedly doubled now, so that's about $150 million a year and growing. Probably enough to have recouped their investment in Android, and making a profit on it now.
It's not hurting their bottom line, given the higher margins of Google relative to Apple...
Unfortunately, not so good for innovation.
Why? Let the phone hardware experts do the hardware, let the software experts do the software. NO COMPANY is expert at everything.
Additionally, having multiple of each type of expert tends to breed competition and feeds on each other's results, usually stimulating innovation. Closed, locked-in, non-competitive markets are typically stagnant; dynamic, competitive markets are where you get innovation.
Ah, the old loss leader approach. How innovative. Incapable of profitably even maintaining a position in a market I see. I know another company that's fully capable of profiting immediately in even a brand-new market. That's the company I'm more impressed with.
Higher revenue, higher profits, and higher profit margin than Apple. You just don't like hearing those facts, do you...;)
Windows so high? It's going to hit the market as a FAR INFERIOR product to both iOS and Android, and it won't be able to use Microsoft's classic move of leveraging compatibility with legacy products.
Consider the above timeline - 4 years ago, Apple was nothing in the phone market. Two years ago Android was nothing. Amazing what just a few years can do in such a market!
Bottom line: Microsoft and Google know how to keep more of what they bring in. They have higher margins - indisputable. You can say it's because Apple sells lower margin products (hardware), but it doesn't change the fact - Microsoft and Apple are more profitable on a margin basis, and Microsoft is considerably more profitable on an absolute dollar basis as well.
Just wanted to follow up on this... Apparently it's NOT cannibalizing 50% of notebook sales, but 50% of netbook sales. A VERY different thing than 50% of notebook sales (netbooks were about 10% of notebook sales, or about 5% of the total PC market).