The government hates Apple and Google’s control of the mobile market, but consumers are the ones who give it to them.
Oxford University defines a duopoly as “a situation where two suppliers dominate the market for goods or services.” When it comes to the mobile market, this is also how the UK and other countries view Google and Apple. It’s hard to refute; phones without Google or Apple software do exist, but they will never gain any traction. (Editor’s note: Never give up.)
In almost all cases, duopoly is a very bad thing. It limits the choices of consumers, provides opportunities for controlling parties to collude and shape a market that benefits them, and pushes up prices.
We have seen the Google/Apple duopoly at work, and it is generally appropriate. Gone are the days of buying a good Windows phone for $150, and will never return. This terrible duopoly is obvious, but rarely mentioned, that this is exactly what consumers and market-driven economies want to happen.
This doesn’t mean you Hope it happens, so you can settle down before jumping to the comments. I don’t want it to happen either; I think MeeGo is a better choice, maybe even webOS. But no matter how much we want things to be different, two people are not the deciders. Consumers prefer Android and iOS, and the current duopoly is born. Long live the king. Or something else.
For many people, their first smart phone was an iPhone or Android phone. These people may think it is crazy that there are other really good smartphone operating systems before iOS and Android. Both BlackBerry and Windows Mobile have had more successful periods than other brands. However, none of the early operating systems gained enough followers to drive competition in meaningful numbers as we see today.
Now, we have nostalgic users who reluctantly pick up their iPhone or Android while lamenting the loss of competition, and those who happily accept these changes and think we are all better because of them are inconsistent. Both are right. Both are wrong.
Luck played a role.
Google and Apple are not just lucky. Marketing, strategic operator partnerships and brand loyalty all play an important role. Even so, this is not always sufficient, as demonstrated by the failed phones of Amazon and Facebook. Someone must “win the application war”, and no single factor can guarantee victory. Add some luck to the wise decisions made by Apple and Google, and you will be where we are today.
From my point of view, what I call “application wars” has played the biggest role. Maybe I’m tired of it, but the only obvious advantage of Android and iOS over Windows Phone and other similar products lies in each company’s app store. Ease of use, security, or even functionality can’t be compared to playing Angry Birds or having a great YouTube app. This is also in line with the wishes of consumers.
If you are developing an application today, you want it to work on both Android and iOS, because in most cases you do it to make money. You know that if your app is available to more people, you will make more money, and building another version of the app for relatively few users will not bring much profit. In addition, even if you have to moisten their beaks by handing over the highest scores of Google and Apple, you also value easy distribution and monetization. This is a simple economic question, and it has always been.
As we all know, Windows Phone died due to the application gap.
As we all know, Windows Phone died due to the application gap. Many people blame Microsoft for its digital storefronts or development tools, but market share is the real root cause behind any app gap. Without enough users, its app store cannot build apps to make money. If there is no suitable application, there will never be enough users. The application gap creates a technical trap for all relevant personnel22. In the end, the wise business move is to stop trying to make a mobile phone that can compete, because no mobile phone can compete. The same is true for Palm, Nokia before Microsoft, BlackBerry, and all other promising smartphone ideas that did not come from Apple or Google.
This is a problem with a clear solution that is almost impossible to achieve: build better smartphones and better applications at a better price. Maybe fines and changes to laws or enforcement of existing laws will help, maybe not. But this is not a problem that a smart engineer can solve by building a prototype in his or her garage.
Think about it: If I could build a high-end device running the latest version yours Favorite operating system in the past, but without third-party applications, do you think it will sell well?Should the government force a change Make Are they selling well? Should home buyers have the final decision right?
The market should-and will-make a decision.
If you say no, maybe, yes, then we are on the same page.We are also subject to Someone Who is not the one we make the decision that affects what we can buy. I want to buy a modern version of Nokia N9, equipped with all 5G and Wi-Fi 6e features, which can compete with the best Android phones, but I also want to be able to install some basic applications on it. Unfortunately, browsers and web applications cannot cover everything.
At the same time, even if Google can, Android is not that bad. In terms of hardware, we have real choices and can enjoy the benefits of duopoly. Let us only hope that the governments of the world will not “fix” it and let it be forgotten.