“Who’s winning the mobile platform wars, Apple’s iOS or Google’s Android?”
Glass has to be connected to an Android phone for the device to work, this may then limit the potential market available to Glass as only Android mobile phone owners have the technology available; whilst Apple, Microsoft and other mobile companies are not compatible with Glass. Therefore, depending which company, iOS and Apple, has the most control over the market will demonstrate whether Google should in fact make Glass accessible to other mobile phone companies in case they are not the industry leader.
Comscope MobiLens studying attempts to measure the smartphone platforms used by everyone over the age of 13 in the U.S. The numbers were released in the first 1/4 of 2013 but relate to every every phone sold, not just recently. Android are leading this data collection by 52.3% compared with iOS’ 37.8%, insinuating that more Android phones have been sold over the years.
IDC comments that worldwide, Android phones sell a lot more units that Apple sells of the iPhone, in 2012 Android had more than 70% share compared to 21% for iPhone. Indicating that not only in the U.S but worldwide, more Android phones are sold than iPhones, and by a difference of 49% globally. This would encourage Google that making Glass accessible through any phone not a high priority as it appears they are leading the industry by a large margin and therefore have a larger basis of customers to offer to rather than if Apple made their own device to sell alongside their iPhone.
Whilst always following close in second place, Apple didn’t manage to sell more units than Samsung which deals primarily with Android phones measured on a worldwide scale. Nonetheless, Statergy Analytics stated that Apple’s iPhone outpaced Samsung’s shipments but these numbers relate to all types of mobile phones which may not even carry the necessary technology needed for Glass.
Apple however are clearly making a larger profitability by taking 72% of the profit in the last quarter, this would indicate that Apple have more amount of disposable or saved money to spend on the development of products and technology involved, possibly leading to them creating a strong competitor against Glass with the money they have access to.
In regards to apps, both iOS and Android have over 8o0,000 third-party programs. It is hard to destinguish who has the best apps as that comes down to personal opinion and therefore the quality is inherently subjective. Nonetheless, Utest measures and collects users reviews and rankings and from these readings, iOS scored 68.5 compared to the average Android app at 63.3. However, according to Canalys just over half of all apps downloaded in the first quarter of this year were for Android with 51%. iOS, at about 40% share, was the only other competition. Once again, Android are somewhat beating Apple in statistics.
Controversially, even though iOS users aren’t downloading as much, they are willing to spend more money on that apps they do purchase. This could mean that if and once Apple make their competitive product against Glass, consumers will be more willing to buy a product simple because it is Apple offering it to them, therefore the profits made would roll over into the next development and the research available will be in Apples favour who can afford to delve deeper into technology. If Google offered Apple members the potential to purchase Glass with iOS features and computability already built in, they would refrain from waiting and buying the Apples version and therefore reduce the risk of a competitor.
This pie chard states which company is used mostly within businesses, and it points out that iOS is largely in the lead. Possibly insinuating that Apple have a higher threshold on other businesses and therefore it may be easier for them to integrate new products from their portfolio into these companies than it would be for Google. Citrix reports that consumers using iOS have deployed enterprise mobility management into the cloud and therefore it would be difficult to move all of this information, and it may be simpler to buy a product which is similar to this system.
With the numerous outcomes from different charts and testings, it still cannot be monitored who is ‘winning’ between the two competitors as they both excel in different areas. Obviously it would be handy for the consumer if Glass was compatible with all smartphones but Google have to make a decision which would ultimately fulfil their needs and help build them as a company. They appear to be leading in selling the most mobile phones and therefore won’t find it difficult to find consumers to market their Android specific product, but Apple are coming a close second with a large amount of income readily available for research into products such as wearable technology.
Whether or not Google do decide to make Glass compatible with all smartphones, RoseTinted wouldn’t be limited to only Android or only iOS devices, offering Google loyalty to the brand for the first 3-5 years would be essential in marketing and developing the product. But once other competitors start to create their own head-mounted optical computers, RoseTinted should be readily available for them as well. Therefore money would have to be saved for research into iOS and other systems for Cloud etc. to ensure that all functions available through the app would all work the same way they do with Google’s Glass.