“First, over time, mobile advertising and search has the potential to be a more effective lead to actual purchases than does desktop advertising and search. The ability to target ads to consumers when they are in the vicinity of ‘point of purchase’ will be extremely effective in generating sales,” Travlos writes. “Both Apple and Google have recently purchased companies that enable them to deliver mobile ads embedded in applications. Thus, distribution of these mobile ads will be dependent upon the number of handsets that can deliver the ads and the number of apps that have ads embedded in them. Currently, Apple has a head start in both camps, with over 30 million iPhones sold to date, with a 55% market share in OS requests in the US, an estimated 36 million to 40 million more to be sold in 2010 and 125,000 applications.”
“Second, the age-old debate around ‘open’ (a la Google) vs. ‘closed’ (a la Apple) systems doesn’t apply here. The knock against closed and the lure of open has always been innovation. People embraced ‘open’ when ‘closed’ did not meet all its needs. This was relevant years ago when the enterprise had IT departments that needed open, flexible systems in order to customize systems for their specific needs,” Travlos writes. “Mobility, on the other hand, is largely a consumer-based groundswell and customization is provided by third-party applications. In fact, Apple has overcome the legacy disadvantages associated with closed systems and boasts the greatest number of opportunities for users to customize their iPhones while maintaining all the advantages, namely quality control, of a closed system. Again, Apple offers approximately 125,000 apps to Google’s 18,000.”
“Third, Apple has much more experience and is among the most successful companies in the world with product introductions. Over the next several weeks, Apple is rumored to announce its tablet or e-reader and is expected to begin selling sometime in the next three months… The concern investors will have when Apple introduces its tablet will most likely be the price point and, if so, this will offer investors a nice opportunity to buy on a dip,” Travlos writes. “Apple has been successful at creating value to consumers at higher price points. Given its success with the iPod, the iPhone and the market share gains with Mac computers, track record is on Apple’s side.”
Travlos writes, “The tech cycle from the mid-’80s to the end of the ’90s created enormous wealth, and we all wished for just one more shot. Here it is: the mobile Internet is a secular growth cycle with strong momentum… Investors have the opportunity to take advantage of this new technology cycle still in nascent stages.”
There’s much more in the full article here.
Who will win the mobile Internet war? Apple.
In which area? money or selling hardware? Google makes a lot of money in iPhones because of admod advertisements.
Apple brought another company to compete with that, but Google owns the biggest and more used search engine in the world. Almost every apple product uses a google product.
I believe Apple will sell more mobiles phones (and also I hope so because the iphone is really good), but for every iphone sold, google will end with more money in its pocket. So it does not look like a war that will end soon.
If Apple wins that “war”, great! If Apple loses the war to Google, that’s not a bad thing.
If The Giving Tree shoves a stick up Ballmer’s A$$, that’s not a bad thing either.
I’m completely tired of this constant “war” metaphor. It is not a war. It is business. That’s it.
Bait a hook with Apple vs. Google and watch the hits roll in. Google is the default search for Mobile Safari, so (for most people), every use of the iPhone’s browser is a win for Google.
There is no war here, analtards. Just hit-whoring linkbait disguised (I hope, for the sake of the retarded premise) as poor tech journalism.
@Hm…
You certainly don’t understand business, then. It is war. Generally more civilized, as it is an infrequent occurrence when one business physically destroys another. But it is war and survival, in the struggle to dominate a market.
@hm…
I have to agree….
It most certainly can be a war, but that is beside the point.
Right now, google gets money from ANYONE doing a search, not just mobile platforms. However, if a more efficient way of mobile advertising finds its way to the iPhone, google’s ads in the search results may end up being less and less valuable to the advertisers.
The point is, businesses have always looked for a more efficient and effective way of delivering info about their products and services to potential customers. The era of carpet-bombing TV, radio and print ads still reigns supreme, but it is now obvious that its time is limited. Precision strike is going to deliver significantly more efficient advertising, the result of which will be a major benefit for all involved. For a business, that will mean spending a lot less money on unnecessary ads (showing an erectile dysfunction ad to a teenage girl), and for consumers, it will mean receiving meaningful information about a product that we would actually want (or need) to buy. The end result will be lower cost or better quality of the product (when ad spending goes down, either the price goes down too, or the quality goes up), and less wasted time on seeing pointless ads.
I can see how Apple could capitalise on their current mobile position and lead the advertising business into this direction.
WHAT “mobile Internet war”????
Two players enter a market and ‘journalists’ suddenly declare a war.
Doesn’t anyone listen to Cramer?
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/23586/
I’m loving that Microsoft doesn’t even enter into the equation these days
All ready did….Apple
Google just wanted to get MS out of it. Keeping up with Windows
was killing them.
Google wins.
Apple wins.
Android loses.
I feel like they are playing Monopoly.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Open/closed systems: the AppStore is a good example that a well regulated market works much better (both for customers and – in the end – for developers) than an Android-like open-anything-goes-self-regulatory market…
For there to be a “war”, one combatant must come out on top at the complete expense of any and all opposition. That will NEVER happen… not in the OS market, not in the phone market. Apple will never ever ever ever ever have 100% of all mobile phone sales, or even the “smartphone” sales. Not ever. They may be the clear market leader and have more sales than all the competition combined some day, but there will always be those others still nipping at their heels hoping, however futilely, to be king of the hill one day.
Apple vs Google?
Apple’s integrated “whole product” approach.
Some have compared competition in the mobile communications market between Apple and Google to Apple’s competition with Microsoft in the PC marketplace, with Google assuming the role previously played by Microsoft by providing the software for a multitude of hardware providers.
There were several very significant factors affecting the PC market which simply do not exist today in the mobile communications market.
IBM Dominance in early PC marketplace: Being “IBM compatible” trumped innovation. The decision made by a purchaser of PC technology was not seen as a decision between Apple vs Microsoft, nor Apple vs Wintel, but rather Apple vs “IBM compatible”. The reality in the marketplace for those making PC buying decisions was that you would never lose your job by buying IBM or “IBM compatible”. The significance of this factor cannot be overstated in influencing PC buyers to chose “IBM compatible”, and therefore Microsoft operating system software. As IBM viewed the PC as a “toy” which was deemed not strategically important to their business, they created the specifications and then essentially gave away the business to Microsoft, Intel and other PC manufacturers.
Any technology innovator, such as Apple, that did not conform to “IBM compatible” was fighting an almost insurmountable hurdle. No such factor exists in today’s technology marketplace, let alone in the nascent and evolving mobile communications market.
IT Department “gatekeepers”: The PC purchase decision was being made by IT departments, who were heavily influenced by 3 significant factors: 1) IBM compatibility (as mentioned above) 2) job security and 3) cost of the hardware and software. The concept of “Total Cost of Ownership”, which takes into account the costs of the IT department required to install, configure, update, and maintain, wasn’t considered, and even today is often ignored, in part because it conflicts with factor number 2, which is job security for the IT department. This contrasts heavily with purchase decisions today, in part, because technology users are no longer dependent on the IT Department to support their individual purchases.
Corporate/early adopter market vs Consumer Mass Market: The more significant factor, however, is that the market for mobile communications is a consumer based mass market, as opposed to an “early adopter” or corporate technology market. In a consumer based mass market, what is critical is providing the “whole product”, a concept Geoffrey Moore discusses in his book Crossing the Chasm. Apple is the master at providing the “whole product” because that has always been their approach, while every other technology company has focused on providing only a piece of the puzzle, be it software, hardware, services, etc. The “whole product” concept is why Apple was so successful with the iPod, as no other company pulled all the pieces together into an integrated “whole product” Now Apple is, in my view, taking the “whole product” concept even further, and will be providing the “whole eco system” for mobile communications and mobile computing, integrated with your desktop and your home entertainment system.
Apple is the only company with the expertise to pull all the pieces together and offer an integrated “whole product” or “whole eco system”, as they now have decades of experience developing integrated “whole products”.
“The ability to target ads to consumers when they are in the vicinity of ‘point of purchase’ will be extremely effective in generating sales,”
Oooohhhh!!!!!! Lets buy that phone.
It’s better at generating ads for my phone!
People will buy the phone that caters to what people want, not what executives think they can squeeze out of the customers.
Based on what reviewers are saying about the Nexus One . . .
It looks like Apple already has a hotel on Boardwalk!
@Burkeh
Spot on and well conveyed, in particular, why Microsoft dominated.
I proffer the following scenario.
We currently have the iPhone<=>Apps1 dynamic combination for gaming and the spoken word.
We will now have the iSlate<=>Apps2 for News,Books,Movies
Both accessed thru the iTunes store.
Apps2 will allow the reach of the many writers to publish cheaply their creations just like Apps1 did without the tentacles of the large publishing houses.
News and Magazines will be accessed by subscription, or a one off fee.
If Apple can pull off what I am trying to say, the iSlate and it’s Apps cousin will take off like the iPod/iPhone/Apps store has.
@Burkeh
A good summation, except that the PC “toy” was not given away by IBM ~ it was taken from them by Compaq doing some reverse-engineering.
@Burkeh, very good points. From our perspective 25 years later we forget that the original desision wasn’t Mac vs Windows. If it was as simple as that we know who would have won.
I agree. This should be called a “skirmish”, or maybe a “border dispute”.
Who doesn’t give a fuck about customers? Google
can a premise really be retarded? last time I checked retarded didn’t mean stupid. so off to use that hurtful word.