Articles tagged Google.

The latest cell phone market share figures should have tablet makers quaking in fear of what Apple may do to them once iPad 3 arrives. Currently, Apple is sucking all the profits out of the market. Moreover, many of Apple's competitors have taken their best stab at iPad by flooding the channel, but with weak sell-though results (just ask Samsung, HP or RIM how tablets are working out).

The latest figures peg Apple's global tablet market share at 61.3%. Like with iPhone vs Android phones, we saw Android quickly race out ahead in deployment numbers, which are flattening out or starting to work back in Apple's favor. New numbers for the iPhone comes from BTIG analyst Walter Piecyk, predicting up to 30 million iPhones could be sold in the September quarter. If iPhone sales are poised for this absolute explosion, what will halo effect be for iPads vs the rest of the pack?

According to a report by All Things D, Apple's iPhone is now the best selling smartphone for Verizon and AT&T.

To that we say a big, collective, DUH! Add in the revelation that T-Mobile (a non-authorized iPhone carrier) now admits they have over one million unlocked iPhones on their network!

Apple's Steve Jobs seems to be the wunderkind reborn after his return to Apple in 1997. His first stint with Apple led to the design and launch of the original Macintosh and the original Mac OS. During his second time behind the wheel he brought us the iMac, Mac OS X, and the i-Series of products and iOS operating system.

There's not much that Apple has done under Jobs' leadership that hasn't been a success. One of guiding principle Jobs has used is during his second term is, "Keep Your Friends Close; Keep Your Enemies Closer". There are three examples of this from the recent decade: Intel, Google and Facebook.

Part I can be seen here. Part II continues with market share assumptions and the fallacies they advance.

iOS vs Android: The Market Share War That Is

Analysts and tech media alike have one central theme correctly identified. Apple and Google are in a heated market–share war, but declaring any victor in today's battle would be pure folly. Yet Henry Blodget advances his position that Android is now the victor and iOS is dead. Blodget flashes around Nielsen's latest purchasing intent survey as proof positive. I also recall a survey claiming nearly 54% of all Verizon customers would turn in their Blackberry's and Android's for iPhone 4 on day one of it's launch.

Lack of Security within mobile OSes isn't anything new. Developers have seen the gaping holes for quite some time an the public is just starting to become aware. Back on April 5th the WSJ did some pretty impressive research on Pandora's invasive practices within the Apple's iOS and Google's Android operating systems, and both seem to be unable in stop applications from taking what they want out of the phone (at least for now).

With the latest iOS is tracking you story making national headlines, the general consumer seems to be catching on that their devices are peeking in on what they are doing, or at least they think they are (and their apps are likely doing even more privacy damage). The whole buzz around this privacy issue is eerily similar to that of "antenna-gate" and it's best Apple get in front of this as they did with the iPhone 4's attenuation story. It is critical Apple blows holes in mis-information and rumor before it becomes an assumed fact the Apple is stealing your every move from iOS devices.

Recently a big stink over user privacy has reared its ugly head again, but this time about one of my favorite products and something I use daily, if not hourly — the iPhone. Security researchers Alasdair Allan and Pete Warde revealed last week that Apple was storing logs of users' geographic coordinates in a hidden file. The researchers didn't know why Apple was doing this or what it was using the data for, but they said Apple indeed is gathering this information about the whereabouts of its iPhone users.

In business there are times when opportunity knocks and you had better be ready to answer the door. Is your hair combed, your shirt tucked in, does your breath smell good? Because on the other side is royalty, and it's called "opportunity".

Google had such a knock on their door in 2009 when Apple decided to enter into a third year of exclusively with AT&T. On the other hand, Google was working with several handset makers across the other three major US carriers delivering the Android OS. While Android wasn't yet mature and its feature set somewhat lacking, Mr. Opportunity knocking at Google's door. But did Google answer?

Google announced a new video codec in May 2010, called WebM. This format uses Ogg Theora audio and VP8 video codecs. Google received VP8 when they purchased On2 for $106 million back in August of 2009. WebM is designed to take on the H.264 video codec that has become the digital video standard. Google says WebM is an open and free format.

Since Google does not make any money on WebM, Why have they created it? Google makes money by selling advertising. In Google's eyes, users are the product and advertisers are the customers. The more users Google has, the more they can sell to their advertising customers, and the more money Google makes. Google creates free products and services to bring in more users. 

This weekend Apple added a Japan Tsunami donation page to iTunes. Apple claims 100% of your donation will go to the Red Cross. Last week social media giant Facebook announced the rental of Warner Bros. movies through Facebook. In response Netflix stock took a 5.8% hit on the news. Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos fired back (in fear) "Nobody goes to Facebook to watch movies."  Ah,... yet. I remember no one was going to watch movies on their computer when Netflix first started their online streaming services too. There really is no reason Facebook can't do what Netflix did by integrating their movie service into the AppleTV, XBox 360, Wii and more.

These are just two examples (iTunes donation, Facebook movies) of giants walking about and running out of room, so they start bumping into one another.

Google's Android OS fragmenting into a death spiral may be overblown at times, but it certainly won't be overstated in the tablet arena - assuming of course, one of these years PC hardware vendors will be able to compete with Apple's iPad and its pricing.

Android's appearance in the tablet market is currently minimal, but as PC vendors are forced to get in the game due to shrinking netbook and notebook sales, Google is going to witness Pandora breaking out of her box, with no quick fix on how to remedy the situation. The issue I am speaking of is one that is (or soon will be) staring every Android tablet developer squarely in the face — Android's complete lack of attention to hardware vendor's screen resolution, aspect ratio and pixel density. Mind you, this is no trivial problem.

It was January 2010, and front and center at CES was Steve Ballmer who "demoed" for us three (he really only used one) "slate" products running Windows 7. Well, "demo" is really an generous description. Ballmer picked the slate up, did a few things with it and then put it back on the shelf next to the other two "slates". We were told that 2010 would be a year full of slate product introductions — and it was going to be exciting!

Ballmer got his prediction half correct. On January 27, Apple launched the iPad — a real tablet that ran a sophisticated OS and it began shipping in mass in April. If you had an iPhone or iPod Touch, you knew how to use the iPad right out of the box: download software, sync with your computer and everything else. Even better your iPhone/iPod Touch software could be used on the iPad. Developers also were in luck as they didn't need to do much to adjust their apps for the iPad either.

Yesterday the Nielsen Company reported that for the months of November 2010 to January 2011 Google's Android operating system’s market share has pulled ahead of Apple and RIM with 29% of the smartphone sales in the U.S.

As with most things, when you look behind the curtain there is more than meets the eye — and in this case we don't find a happy, content Android family, but one fighting for its smartphone life.

Now that Microsoft has successfully inked a deal with Nokia, MeeGo and Symbian are all but dead, leaving Nokia with a new master from Redmond, Washington. Both Nokia and Microsoft needed this deal regardless of the costs, as it delivers Nokia a partner in the OS world and Microsoft a level of credibility in the smart phone market place.

Microsoft's never been good at competing against opponents of equal weight. Rather, Microsoft's typical game is to bully their way into a market over time by outspending the competition. But this business model is expensive as seen in their entertainment division, and it failed with their Windows CE, Plays for Sure and HD-DVD initiatives. When Microsoft is standing toe-to-toe with other giants, we don't suggest placing your bets on Mr. Softie.

 While Google should be happy with Android's success so far, they are showing signs to the contrary. Since Google gives Android away for free, they can only make money on selling ads on the Android platform. They don't talk about how much they make from these ads either.

Even though Android is increasing in market share, that does not mean Google is making money on all that market share. Since Android is open source and device makers can remove Google from the devices, this could be a danger for Android's future development if Google can't make enough money.

 Apple cares little about market share, much more about profits. For companies like Microsoft and Intel, market share and profits go hand in hand. This is not true for Apple.

Apple competed with Microsoft not through market share, but through margins. They proved this when Steve Jobs came back and ended the licensing program for the Mac OS. Steve showed you can make a lot of money without dominant market share. They are now doing the same thing with Android.

The talk of the town is Apple's big iPhone 4 deal with Verizon, but Google also came to the table yesterday with a little announcement of their own. Google delivered an under-the-radar announcement, stating they will be dropping support for the h.264 codec in favor of their open source WebM codec.

Google claims their Chrome browser dropping h.264 is about supporting open standards. If Google were truly concerned with supporting open standards, why does the proprietary Flash still ship with Chrome as a preinstalled plug-in? As John Gruber of Daring Fireball points out, the hypocrisy is thick.

Google is the King of internet search, but there is a new game in town. Social media is the next wave of internet communication and Google has been unable to compete with Facebook or Twitter. Not only is Facebook the top social media website, it has also de-throned Google as the most visited website in the US for 2010. While Google is going after Apple's mobile market, Facebook is going after Google's core business.

Google is focused on finding another market in which to grow their business. All of these new strategies are based on free or open source software. One of these new markets is the smartphone market with Android, in which they are competing directly with Apple. Google has created many such projects and has canceled some of them like Google Wave. Google and their open source software developers have been generating software products at an astounding rate. Yet, it does not look like they have a clear strategy to all this software development. They are basically throwing mud on a wall and hoping some of it sticks. Can such a mud flinging battle be profitable?

It's no secret people move in packs. Whether populations migrate to new continents or flocking to malls on Black Friday, it makes no difference, the masses will follow each other over cliffs if the herd moves that way.

Technologies that win the day are not lost on human behavior either. VHS vs Betamax, Windows versus Mac OS or the air-popper vs the superior oven roasted Whirly-pop popcorn, the masses consistently find themselves settling for the lowest common denominator as "good enough" often defeats better or best.

   Today, Google announced Chrome OS for the third time. Chrome OS essentially turns your browser into an operating system. Everything you do, you do it online including accessing your files. It basically turns your shiny new computer into a dumb terminal for the web. All of your files are on the internet or what many refer to as the cloud. I could see certain business applications that could take advantage of this browser based operating system. For most users though, this does not seem like a realistic operating system. The browser is one of the main applications we use on a daily basis. But to remove the rest of the applications makes for a very limited computing environment.

   Most people who live in the real world go in and out of internet coverage. Why limit your computing time to just those times you have coverage. In large businesses, that is not a big deal because they have plenty of bandwidth to the internet. But this is a major disadvantage to the browser only computer system for everyday users. When you go out of internet coverage, like on an airplane, you lose access to those files. Unlike big businesses, most users still don't have fast internet access to their homes. Even those who have fast internet speeds, their desktop application are still much faster. Total cloud computing is not realistic in the real world.