The struggle of recognized market leaders for a place in the sun with an enviable frequency becomes a topic for articles in foreign publications and on resource pages. One of such analytical materials is in today's issue of the Gazebo.
One of the conclusions following the results of the past Google I / O 2015 was the movement Apple and Google towards the mobile ecosystem under the guidance of their own strategy and vision. After years of bitter struggle for market share in smartphones, the very nature of the battle of companies has changed. Google's ambition is to 'connect' its second billion users to its ecosystem and expand the presence of its services on a variety of devices, for which it needs to work with a user base iPhone, rapidly striving for five hundred million users. Claims Apple are aimed at making technology something personal, private, as well as reducing its dependence on Google, its main competitor. The next phase of the confrontation is already in action and could very well be as brutal as the first battles of this 'war', the battlefield of which has gone beyond devices and where it is now decided which platform is most successful in providing the best user experience.
Since launching iPhone in 2007, the battle Apple against Google has been constantly changing its course: it all started with an 'arms race' for market share, followed by the consolidation of OEMs under the leadership of Samsung, which in turn changed the revival iPhone with a large screen, which was a harbinger of changing the plane of the 'battle' to a more global one.
Battle for the number of daily activations (2009-2011)
In the early stages of competition, it was all about market share. Daily press coverage of industry news highlighted sales of devices based on various operating systems. Google, especially Andy Rubin, has occasionally proudly announced the number of daily activations Android. In the fourth quarter of 2010, Steve Jobs, through negotiations for profit Apple with a conference call analyst, somewhat cooled the fervor of competitors. The goal was clear: to promote iOS as a platform for which it is profitable to develop applications. Jobs: 'Last week, Eric Schmidt re-reported 200,000 daily activations while boasting an app store of 90,000 apps. For comparison, over the past 30 days, we have activated an average of 275,000 devices per day, while our catalog has 300,000 applications. Unfortunately, there is no exact information on how many devices based on Android are supplied to suppliers quarterly. We hope that manufacturers will soon start providing such information. But this day is not today. '
The battle was fought not only in the market and in the press, but also in court, as Apple brought forward the accused several manufacturers of competitive devices based on Android of patent infringement. Behind this lawsuit was not so much a financial interest as a matter of pride and influence on the speed of development of competitors in the market. As you can imagine, the market was the main target during the early stages of the 'war'.
Samsung Board (2012-2013)
The aforementioned time was interesting for Apple, it was then that Samsung made a large-scale invasion of the ecosystem Android, making a profit on the absence of large-screen competitors in smartphones and, as such, competition in the budget segment. Despite the fact that extensive user migration iOS to Samsung devices was out of the question, for Apple the ability of one device seller to form such a huge distribution network was a wake-up call. weight within the ecosystem Android. Aside from background litigation, the battle spilled over to television screens, where Samsung ridiculed users in a rather successful series of commercials Apple.
Proof of how seriously Apple Samsung's threat was taken was Phil Schiller's attempt to anticipate the much-anticipated New York Galaxy S4 announcement by discrediting Android and making Samsung's overwhelmingly positive press more neutral shade. Here are excerpts from his interview with the Wall Street Journal: 'Android is often provided as a free replacement for a regular mobile phone and does not boast a good user experience, unlike iPhone .. When you get Android is out of the box, then you need to authenticate with 9 product accounts from different manufacturers to get a similar iOS user experience. '
It should be noted that at that time Apple Samsung was considered only a priority manufacturer. Google was considered the main long-term threat, Samsung, according to the company's management from Cupertino, was only gaining market share, having Android at its core and only for this reason. Without Android Samsung devices could not have competed iPhone.
A new battle
Today the number of users iPhone totals almost 500 million people, positions Apple are strong in the key regions for the company – the USA (40% of sales), Great Britain (40%) and China (25% ). Any doubts about crowding out iOS by multiple devices from various OEMs was perceived as a repeat of the era Windows and is most likely done away with. The platform now has a critical mass, the ability to attract developers and third-party developers, including Google, Facebook and Twitter to support users iOS.
One of the key themes of the 2015 Google I / O conference was Google's need for iOS and 475 million users iPhone to successfully thrive in Google's business. Considering the prospects for the next few years and assuming further sales growth iPhone of 10-20%, it can be understood that a third-party player with a business model that depends on the growth of the user base will not be able to ignore the ecosystem's potential of 600-700 million users. Many might call a reckless move Google's strategic maneuver to restrict the use of Google Maps on iOS, which pushed Apple to develop its product, but it was done retroactively. Google considered it appropriate and risked such a step. iOS was a very different and less 'strong' platform at that time than it is today.
Coming back to the thought already expressed, the battle Apple vs. Google has gone beyond smartphones, literally and figuratively. Go to the store of any mobile operator and on the presented Android devices and iPhone Google services will be installed. In addition, the cost of the devices will be about the same. Google may and does succeed in developing cloud-based automated learning technologies, but they are not an incentive to buy Android instead of iPhone. Considering the limited distribution of Nexus devices, it is difficult to consider them a competitive alternative in the eyes of most users. The decision to buy a smartphone is now mostly made up of other 'pieces of the puzzle', either worn on the hand (smart watch), in a bag or backpack (tablets ) or at work and at home (PCs and laptops). It is worth expanding the logical range further to support third-party devices at work and on the road, and the choice between iOS and Android becomes a much more decisive factor when buying a new smartphone.
Strategy Apple
Apple wants to be at the intersection of technology and liberal arts. Providing a personalized technology experience Apple will require maintaining control over the variable factors that can combine to create such an experience. A key component will be the ownership of important technologies and services that can be used in one way or another in future projects. Avoiding conflict with a map service that has been restricted by a third party is a good example. In the future, maps are likely to be a necessary foundation for personalized transportation. If iOS does not have a leading position in the automotive market, then such a position may have a potential risk in terms of cooperation with third-party partners in the provision of cartographic information. Such a logical series applies to the control of Apple over experience providing users with content such as movies and music. It should be noted that Apple does not need to own or create content to achieve its goal. Instead, being a middleman between content owners and consumers gives Apple space to add something new to the user experience. Subsequently, this experience can be extended to Android to further attract people to switch to iOS, which is done through Apple Music.
Another way to support the user experience for Apple is to emphasize the atmosphere of luxury and its inherent emotions. Using the example of Apple Watch, you can see how the bid for materials and appearance, coupled with price differentiation in the $ 400- $ 17,000 range, evokes specific emotions, they will be rather difficult to reproduce within Android or other competitive platform for which there is no such thing as luxury.
Google strategy
Google's claims on cloud services are increasingly being placed as a competitor Facebook rather than Apple, because Google's business model is based on solving technological problems by accessing the world's information. Google wants all smartphone users to use their products, be it Android or iOS. Likewise, Facebook this information is also required. Google aims to do the same as Facebook, which has divided its main application into a constellation of products. Based on the talent of the company's developers, there should be no doubt that Google will continue to innovate through such initiatives.
Forward movement
Lessons learned from Google I / O suggest that ignoring such a diverse and active user base such as owners iPhone can be supremely detrimental to Google's ambition. On the other hand, Apple also needs Google, whose services are very popular with users iOS. Be that as it may, judging by the previous actions Apple and the mission to personalize the technology, from Apple should be expected to further move to reduce dependence on Google, this situation is a potential threat to the above mission. Similar to how Nexus delivers as close to clean Android user experience as possible, Apple may want to continue down the path the company can supply iPhone and a set of applications and services that allows you to live within the ecosystem Apple without dependence on Google. While most users will settle for something in between using the services and products of both companies, ultimately the real reason for the struggle between Google and Apple is to have complete control over the user experience.
The further, the less likely it becomes to become a world in which Android thrives due to the deterioration of iOS. Instead, Google increasingly becomes dependent on iOS. which gives the latter an additional chance for further growth and additional strength. At the same time, the platform Android continues to fragment and become less effective in Google's mission of promoting services in order to grow its user base. The main question now is how successful Apple will become in its struggle for independence from Google. There are some prerequisites for a more aggressive way of fighting from the outside Apple in terms of replacing many Google services with 'homebrew' alternative products. This motivation is likely to be the driving force behind continued competition. Yes, sometimes there are local skirmishes in the struggle for individual functions and services, but the more general picture is clear: the fundamentals Apple and Google have fundamentally different views of the world, and each will continue to fight.
Original article
Elir: The mention of the possibility of symbiosis Apple and Google, albeit at the service level, prompts a thought about whether such coexistence makes sense. In my opinion, the isolation of such players is a positive feature, it promotes development and pushes it forward. Another thing is that companies partially copy or imitate each other's software components, thereby leveling the differences in user experience. The author of the article quite clearly showed that without any active measures, Google will have a hard time at this stage of the struggle. Specialists from Mountain View also need to think about the issue of dependence on Apple, or even better – try to drag users into their ecosystem. The 'war' is not over.