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.
Unless the make the "whole widget", as Apple does. A systems company can do both things, integrating hardware and software better than the companies which only can do one or the other.
Personally, I go for the best, and Apple is the best at producing integrated hardware/software systems. In comparison, the others can only peddle low-quality crap. But it's a free country, and if you prefer low-quality crap, I'll stand up for your right to waste your money on that.
iOS changed the definition for a smart phone. We are now in a new market, with RIM and Nokia running on momentum (people are already asking for the Nokia CEO's head, asking when they'll switch to Android). iOS did not enter a market already filled, it entered an empty one for its paradigm and took sales from the existing market. Android succeeded because it was a "good enough" alternative people who wanted a phone using the new paradigm, but didn't want or couldn't afford an iPhone. So now you have the original and the cheaper copy (which is constantly getting better). Where is the room for another inferior copy?
Best Buy does not represent the market. And the laptop and desktop - the PC - market is still growing at 24% annually.
Best Buy is a good representative of the retail market, being the largest in the East and expanding internationally. Your 24% growth figure does not count the iPad, or Android copies (which as you know will sell more due to being cheaper). Face it, tablets are cannibalizing notebooks, and that will only increase. That means Microsoft's market for Windows will shrink.
Let the phone hardware experts do the hardware, let the software experts do the software. NO COMPANY is expert at everything.
Really? Apple makes the best hardware and has the operating systems Microsoft always aims to copy. Apparently one company is capable of it.
Closed, locked-in, non-competitive markets are typically stagnant; dynamic, competitive markets are where you get innovation.
Apple is spurred to innovation because Apple needs to always stay ahead of the copiers or else the company will become a producer of commodity products. Apple begins the death watch when the innovation stops.
Microsoft and Apple are more profitable on a margin basis, and Microsoft is considerably more profitable on an absolute dollar basis as well.
Microsoft's profits will keep rolling on in momentum for quite a long time. Still looking for a solid history of innovation and growth in new markets to support a high valuation. Chirp... chirp....