“According to data from IHS Markit, “Android” supposedly had a plurality of 40% market share of the smart TVs sold in 2018. Samsung’s smart TVs represented 23% of units, exclusively using its Tizen OS. And LG’s webOS smart TVs took another 13%,” Dilger reports. “So why is Apple’s first port to Samsung’s Tizen TVs? The answer says a lot about the worthless nature of market share statistics and the groups trying so hard to create media narratives with them. ”
“In the same way that Apple is dramatically leading phones and tablets by revenues in a world awash with cheap Androids that are not making any money, Samsung is leading the television business,” Dilger reports. “And like Apple’s iPhones, Samsung is largely doing this by winning on the premium end.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Steve Jobs understood implicitly that making premium products sold at premium prices to premium customers was a far, far more valuable business to be in than those trying to “make it up in volume.” Of course, once you separate the wheat from the chaff, your customers have the discretionary income to buy accessories, apps, subscribe to services, etc.
This is why Apple’s 1.4 billion active installed base of devices is significantly more valuable (and appealing to developers, accessory makers, service providers, etc.) than Android’s 2.5 billion active devices and why Google pays Apple $12 billion per year to remain the default search engine in Safari.
Of course we explained that it would end up this way year ago:
Android is pushed to users who are, in general:
a) confused about why they should be choosing an iPhone over an inferior knockoff and therefore might be less prone to understand/explore their devices’ capabilities or trust their devices with credit card info for shopping; and/or
b) enticed with “Buy One Get One Free,” “Buy One, Get Two or More Free,” or similar ($100 Gift Cards with Purchase) offers.
Neither type of customer is the cream of the crop when it comes to successful engagement or coveted demographics; closer to the bottom of the barrel than the top, in fact. Android can be widespread and still demographically inferior precisely because of the way in which and to whom Android devices are marketed. Unending BOGO promos attract a seemingly unending stream of cheapskate freetards just as inane, pointless TV commercials about robots or blasting holes in concrete walls attract meatheads and dullards, not exactly the best demographics unless you’re peddling muscle building powders or grease monkey overalls.
Google made a crucial mistake: They gave away Android to “partners” who pushed and continue to push the product into the hands of the exact opposite type of user that Google needs for Android to truly thrive. Hence, Android is a backwater of second-rate, or worse, app versions that are only downloaded when free or ad-supported – but the Android user is notoriously cheap, so the ads don’t sell for much because they don’t work very well. You’d have guessed that Google would have understood this, but you’d have guessed wrong.
Google built a platform that depends heavily on advertising support, but sold it to the very type of customer who’s the least likely to patronize ads.
iOS users are the ones who buy apps, so developers focus on iOS users. iOS users buy products, so accessory makers focus on iOS users. iOS users have money and the proven will to spend it, so vehicle makers focus on iOS users. Etcetera. Android can have the Hee Haw demographic. Apple doesn’t want it or need it; it’s far more trouble than it’s worth. – MacDailyNews, November 26, 2012
“All men are created equal.”
Well, not when it comes to users of smartphones and tablets…
The bottom line: Those who settle for Android devices are not equal to iOS users. The fact is that iOS users are worth significantly more than Android settlers to developers, advertisers, third-party accessory makers (speakers, cases, chargers, cables, etc.), vehicle makers, musicians, TV show producers, movie producers, book authors, carriers, retailers, podcasters… The list goes on and on.
The quality of the customer matters. A lot.
Facile “analyses” that look only at market (unit) share, equating one Android settler to one iOS user, make a fatal error by incorrectly equating users of each platform one-to-one.
When it comes to mobile operating systems, all users are simply not equal. – SteveJack, MacDailyNews, November 15, 2014
Apple continues to dominate premium smartphone market with 51% global share – April 17, 2019
iPhone owners in the US spent an average of $79 on apps in 2018, up 36% YOY – February 11, 2019
Why Google is willing to pay Apple $12 billion per year – October 24, 2018
Analyst estimates Google will pay Apple $9 billion this year to remain default search – September 28, 2018
Apple thrives by going upscale: It is Economics 101 – September 26, 2018
Apple’s App Store is destroying Google Play in services and subscriptions – April 18, 2018
Apple takes U.S. market share from Android, dominates with 8 iPhones out of 10 best-selling smartphones – July 26, 2018
Apple’s iPhone X made 5 times the profit of 600 Android OEMs combined – April 18, 2018
Apple’s iPhone captured 86% of global handset profits in Q417; iPhone X alone took 35% of global handset profits – April 17, 2018
Apple App Store users spent nearly double that of Google Play users in Q417 – January 26, 2018
Apple’s iOS continues to attract content apps first, despite smaller unit share – October 30, 2017
Bernstein: Google to pay Apple $3 billion this year to remain the default search engine on iPhones and iPads – August 14, 2017
Higher income U.S. states use Apple iPhones; lower income states use Samsung Galaxy phones – September 27, 2016
iOS users are worth 10X more than those who settle for Android – July 27, 2016