iPhone 6: The final straw for Android makers eaten alive by the data parasite?

Arr, makin' spy kit fer Google, a mug's game matey

Analysis Today's long overdue update to Apple's iPhone line - which had been moribund for years - look set to squeeze some rival manufacturers to death. New iPhones at last means that Android, Google's smartphone middleware, will soon look attractive only for budget vendors selling into fast-growing emerging markets.

The problem, in a nutshell, is this. Why should you continue to make something at all if you lose money doing so?

The answer some big names will shortly come to is: "Sorry, we can't - we're bailing out." Because it's all about margins.

Back in 2008, Google made the consumer electronics industry an offer it couldn't refuse. We'll give you a operating-system platform that lets you make an almost-as-good-as-an-iPhone, so you can make profit margins almost-as-good-as-Apple's. Android was modern and it was "free", and manufacturers could tailor it. Neither Microsoft nor Symbian could compete, while RIM/BlackBerry milked its ancient platform for too long, until it too dropped out of contention.

From a technical point of view, Google has kept its side of the bargain. Android has matured faster than anyone anticipated. It's excellent value, and fulfills all that the mass market wants today. A range of devices from smart and full spec'd, like the HTC One M8, to excellent value, like Motorola's Moto G, all access a rich app and services market. But making Android devices in a mature market is now a mug's game. Once you look at the numbers, there's a compelling case for dumping it altogether.

So who blinks first?

Sony, which makes beautiful gadgets, this week forecast a $1.2bn loss from its all-Android smartphone business. Fanbois have begged it not to exit the market. But money doesn't grow on trees, and the Android Black Hole is more than half of the group's losses; it's rational that the axe falls on the 'droids. Already it's been decided that 1,100 jobs will go from Sony's 7,100 mobile division.

HTC makes even more beautiful gadgets than Sony, and its sales are lower than last year, when it struggled to break even. HTC doesn't have the deep pockets of Sony or a Korean chaebol.

Yes, Samsung makes money from Android - the only manufacturer to consistently do so - but at a huge cost. Samsung buys its success with $14bn a year marketing budget, allowing it to put out saturation advertising, pay sales staff to push its products at retail, and hype indifferent offerings in emerging markets. But as with Sony, the Android business is threatening to hurt the rest of the group. Android remains viable for Samsung, which made a $6.1bn (£3.6bn) profit from smartphones, and that's enough to cover the marketing. But the trend is ominous: marketing goes up and profits come down - and eventually, at some point, the two lines converge.

So what gives?

We've found a profitable Android manufacturer! You won't have heard of them...

Well, currently the companies making money from Android are indigenous Chinese manufacturers like Huawei - which famously doesn't borrow to spend on marketing - and ZTE. Lenovo is acquiring the Motorola team and brand, and TCL owns the Alcatel brand.

They can make money because China is an emerging market - it's still growing. They're converting feature phone users and first-time users. As spending power increases, that growth should continue for some time. But in G20 economies, everyone who wants a smartphone has already got one.

It's likely that as the big brands retreat, these names and ones we haven't heard from much - like India's MicroMax - will fill the void. And we're likely to see more from the mobile operators, as with EE's £99 4G Kestrel, a re-branded mid-range Huawei device that's excellent value.

The problem is that all markets become saturated eventually, China and India and the other BRICS just haven't become saturated yet.

Google can see the writing on the wall as well as anyone, and its Silver program anticipates the day when big name brands like Sony, HTC and maybe even Samsung have retreated completely, and devices are made by Foxconn and rebadged.

But Silver on its own isn't enough - it doesn't deal with the lopsided economics of an over-saturated smartphone industry. Google was born in the old dot.com days when startups gave away $1 bills for 90 cents. Today Google loses billions on Android - the justification being that if it's to be the dominant consumer data processing company, it must put its data collection software everywhere it can*. However, Google is also dumping losses it would make as a manufacturer onto third parties, and this isn't a sustainable business plan in the long run.

What Google might have to do is the unthinkable - and give something back. Today it resembles a parasite that's so successful it's killing its host. In its own digitial homeland, Google doesn't appear to feel under any pressure to give something back to the content producers and others it ruthlessly deals with today. But physical hardware - a world Google isn't comfortable in - is different. If nobody can make money making Android data collection hardware, it doesn't get made. ®


*Once Google has a monopoly on consumer data, it can start to replace humans, becoming the Standard Oil of "things-that-humans-once-did, but that can now be automated". But you knew that already, didn't you?

Other stories you might like

  • Stolen university credentials up for sale by Russian crooks, FBI warns
    Forget dark-web souks, thousands of these are already being traded on public bazaars

    Russian crooks are selling network credentials and virtual private network access for a "multitude" of US universities and colleges on criminal marketplaces, according to the FBI.

    According to a warning issued on Thursday, these stolen credentials sell for thousands of dollars on both dark web and public internet forums, and could lead to subsequent cyberattacks against individual employees or the schools themselves.

    "The exposure of usernames and passwords can lead to brute force credential stuffing computer network attacks, whereby attackers attempt logins across various internet sites or exploit them for subsequent cyber attacks as criminal actors take advantage of users recycling the same credentials across multiple accounts, internet sites, and services," the Feds' alert [PDF] said.

    Continue reading
  • Big Tech loves talking up privacy – while trying to kill privacy legislation
    Study claims Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft work to derail data rules

    Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft often support privacy in public statements, but behind the scenes they've been working through some common organizations to weaken or kill privacy legislation in US states.

    That's according to a report this week from news non-profit The Markup, which said the corporations hire lobbyists from the same few groups and law firms to defang or drown state privacy bills.

    The report examined 31 states when state legislatures were considering privacy legislation and identified 445 lobbyists and lobbying firms working on behalf of Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft, along with industry groups like TechNet and the State Privacy and Security Coalition.

    Continue reading
  • SEC probes Musk for not properly disclosing Twitter stake
    Meanwhile, social network's board rejects resignation of one its directors

    America's financial watchdog is investigating whether Elon Musk adequately disclosed his purchase of Twitter shares last month, just as his bid to take over the social media company hangs in the balance. 

    A letter [PDF] from the SEC addressed to the tech billionaire said he "[did] not appear" to have filed the proper form detailing his 9.2 percent stake in Twitter "required 10 days from the date of acquisition," and asked him to provide more information. Musk's shares made him one of Twitter's largest shareholders. The letter is dated April 4, and was shared this week by the regulator.

    Musk quickly moved to try and buy the whole company outright in a deal initially worth over $44 billion. Musk sold a chunk of his shares in Tesla worth $8.4 billion and bagged another $7.14 billion from investors to help finance the $21 billion he promised to put forward for the deal. The remaining $25.5 billion bill was secured via debt financing by Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Barclays, and others. But the takeover is not going smoothly.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022