This Is the Shark That Could Eat Apple

• Report this Comment On December 10, 2011, at 8:50 PM, wgt46 wrote:

  Good discussion. The case for Android, though, is at its base very similar to the the strategic case against IBM that was prosecuted during the late 70's and 80's. Fundamentally, Android is a threat to Apple if it can make multi-function hand-held devices a commodity. "Wintel" beat IBM because it did. Can Google succeed? That's the issue.

  My guess is probably not. Apple's moat is the brand, which I would argue is one of the world's great luxury brands. For a lot of folks, especially the young, that Apple logo is worth a big premium, and Android can't be just as good as IOS; it has to be order of magnitude better. Can one imagine a scenario where Apple loses its design edge and becomes mediocre? Not likely and especially not in the foreseeable future.

  And not only that; by all reports they also have the lowest costs in the industry and we know they have the deepest pockets. Will they lose that advantage as well?

  All is possible. Just not very likely, and particularly not in any kind of 3 year planning cycle. Android is and will likely dominate the low end, low margin commodity device market. Why should this be a threat to Apple?

  And yes, I am long on Apple...

• Report this Comment On December 10, 2011, at 9:00 PM, theHedgehog wrote:

  "Why should this be a threat to Apple?"

  How many white-boxes does one need? Linux is not a threat to Microsoft or Apple, says Gates and Jobs. And yet, look at the large server market. Everything eventually becomes a commodity. Can Apple surprise me and come up with something that nobody else has and that they can't get? The odds are against it. General purpose computers are "general purpose". Apple is a white box, a limited set of hardware, and a good design team. At some point, brand affiliation no longer commands a big price. Ask Ducati.

• Report this Comment On December 11, 2011, at 7:01 AM, Jon408 wrote:

  "Apple is a white box, a limited set of hardware, and a good design team."

  LOL. White box. Right.

  Sheesh.

• Report this Comment On December 11, 2011, at 10:02 AM, JCSEN wrote:

  Apple is by no chance limited, no one can duplicate their software, not even come close. Microsoft has tried and failed, others will try and also fail. It's all about what's inside the little white boxes that count, that's why Apple purchased Siri, because its better than the rest. Yes you can sell millions of Android phones, but it's still not the same as purchasing an Apple product. They sell millions of leather bags around the world, but they are still not Coach, Taco Bell sells millions of burritos, but I rather go to Chipotle. Doesn't anyone get it?

• Report this Comment On December 11, 2011, at 12:44 PM, IsaiahJ wrote:

  Let me start by saying ANDROiD has been dominating iphone sales all last year including this 2011...Apple has very deep pockets and makes about 50% of the smartphone profit off of about 7% worldwide share. That's amazing none the less but Android has Market share about 40 - 50% worldwide...this plays perfectly for Google who makes trillions from search and advertising...Next year we gone see ICS tablets run the ipad into a corner...Android cant be stopped, simply slowed down at the most. Apple is going to remain a strong company but wont be the dominant force that Android is and will be become. PS keep sueing apple #android army

• Report this Comment On December 16, 2011, at 6:46 PM, DBman2000 wrote:

  The hype about Android sales completely misses dynamics of the 'free' OS that it is. It is selling like that simply by creating a great margin for the hardware/device makers...and a good enough product for their "every day person" products. Any market has a low and high end. Apple chooses to exist in the high end, high margin, high quality, polished segment.

  Google's sole mission in providing Android for free, maybe even providing sales incentives in some cases...is to get search in front of that consumer so they can further leverage their ad revenue and intelligence about that consumer. Make no mistake...there is no such thing as 'free' anywhere...the money just comes in different forms at a different step in the food chain. Depending on where you stand in that food chain, is whether you see it or not. Google just looks appealing because the money comes out at a different place. Maybe the best comparison is how people love to hate their cable company, and percieve broadcast TV as 'free'. But rarely can anyone argue that cable has a whole lot more richness of quality content available...and we pay for it because we like to get that full experience....instead of meat and potatoes channels.

  Anyone that gets seriously fired up about this stuff must be in the industry. I can't fathom why anyone not in the industry would give a rip as long as they could do the functions they need on the devices they own, as seamlessly as possible.

  I'm long on MSFT and don't own any stock in Apple or Google.

• Report this Comment On December 17, 2011, at 8:46 AM, Panduranga wrote:

  So I invest in both, Apple and Google. How can that go wrong?

• Report this Comment On December 17, 2011, at 4:06 PM, cubiefool wrote:

  Two different market segments. Android is like the PC market whereas Iphone is the Mac market.

  Both exist and both can thrive. Android on the low end and IOS on the high end. You are also forgetting about SIRI, the cloud and all the linking of technologies within the Apple family that run apps, music and content seemlessly between devices. Android and PC's don't do this. Same will be true with Apple TV when your SIRI will control your TV. As someone else prviously said, you are comparing oranges to apples (pun intended)!

Add your comment.