Labour communications spokesperson Clare Curran wants a discussion on the switch-off date for New Zealand’s copper phone network. Continue reading
Market share figures can look impressive. There are times when market share matters in technology. Other times market share is a red herring. It stops observers from thinking properly.
Take Android’s better than 80 percent share of the smartphone market. It sounds good. Yet collectively the brands selling Android phones lose money.
While Samsung, the largest Android phone maker, earns a slim profit from smartphone sales, taken as a whole, the 180 odd companies making Android phones are in the red
Small but perfectly formed
IDC reports Android had a 84.4 percent share of the smartphone market in the third quarter of 2014. Apple’s iOS accounted for just 11.7 percent of sales.
Apple’s tiny 11.7 percent market share is more valuable than Android’s 84.4 percent. In the same 2014 third quarter Apple took an 86 percent share of phone handset profits.
Which business would you rather invest in? The one with the larger market share or the one that makes a profit?
It’s not a straightforward question because you might assume that today’s larger market share will lead to tomorrow’s higher profits. That’s been how things have worked in the past… sometimes, in some markets.
Buying market share
Android phone makers have bought market share. In effect they bribe customers to give their brands a larger slice of sales.
There’s a plausible case for this. It says that as the phone operating system gathers momentum, more app developers will get behind Android. A greater choice of apps and better quality apps will make Android more attractive to buyers. Eventually phone makers will profit from selling hardware thanks to the perceived added value from better apps.
Android phone buyers spend less money on phones than Apple’s customers. That doesn’t just mean they spend less on hardware, they also spend less on apps.
Apps are different
Android phone makers might sell eight handsets to every Apple handset, but there are roughly the same number of apps in the Google Play store as there are in Apple’s iTunes app store.
When it comes to the number of app downloads the two operating systems are even.
However, the more interesting number is app sales. Apple’s iTunes store makes four dollars for every dollar made by the Google Play store.
That’s right, Apple with just 11.7 percent share of phone sales accounts for around 80 percent of app sales.
Cynics will look at Apple’s 86 percent share of smartphone profits as proof the company overcharges and is therefore gouging iPhone customers. That is conclusion is wrong. The reverse is true.
What the numbers tell you is that Apple delivers exceptional value to customers. Value customers are happy to pay for. Sure some of that might just be brand. Sure there might be an element of the Apple logo on a phone being a status symbol.
In an open and competitive phone market there is no monopoly on branding and status symbols. Plenty of people think Samsung is a prestige brand. Yet Samsung can’t convince customers to pay an Apple-like premium.
Meaningless market share
It makes sense to talk about Samsung’s share of the Android smartphone market. Market share discussions comparing Apple and Samsung have less value.
Talk of Android’s 80+ percent share of the smartphone market is largely meaningless. It is a red herring sending people’s thoughts off in the wrong direction and making faulty ‘common sense’ conclusions that have little link to reality.
New Zealand customers will pay more for broadband services delivered by the copper network. Spark, Vodafone and Callplus all say they will raise prices. Let’s look behind the headlines. Continue reading
From March 2015 Microsoft will host New Zealand and Australian business customers from Azure datacentres in Sydney and Melbourne. Microsoft’s new Australian Azure datacentres opened in October and will cater for Office 365 and Dynamics CRM Online customers.
For most New Zealand customers the move has two implications.
First, Australia is closer to New Zealand than the previous datacentre hosting Microsoft online customers.
Better than Singapore
At the moment a datacentre in Singapore hosts Microsoft’s New Zealand customers. Direct data traffic between New Zealand and Singapore typically has a ping time of around 120ms. Things are worse over the public internet where NZ-Singapore connections can even travel via the US.
Australia is 24ms from Auckland. To put this in context, that roughly the same as the ping times between the Auckland and the most distant mainland destinations in New Zealand.
Conventional wisdom says latency becomes an issue when ping times go over 50ms.
Latency an issue, but not that much
In general lower latency means you access applications faster and speed up data storage. In the case of Microsoft’s Office 365 apps, that might not always be noticeable as they handle most processing tasks locally on your machine. It will make a difference when saving or retrieving data from OneDrive storage.
Yesterday Kordia announced a Microsoft Azure ExpressRoute service. This gives New Zealand companies a private connection to the Azure datacentres. It bypasses the public internet and makes it possible to build hybrid clouds using on-premise servers and Microsoft’s remote services.
The second point about Microsoft moving its Azure datacentres closer to home is a tricky one: data sovereignty, security and confidence. When Microsoft hosts your data on Australian soil, it is subject to Australian law.
In a media statement Microsoft New Zealand’s managing director, Paul Muckleston, says Australian data centres help address data residency considerations, particularly in sectors such as healthcare, education, government and financial services.
Mucklestone is right in the sense that New Zealand organisations are more at home dealing with Australian rules than, say, those in Singapore. But Microsoft is an American company, which means it also has to operate under US law. If the US government decides looking at your data is a matter of its national security, then Microsoft is only going to resist so far.
The good news is that, to date, Microsoft has a good track record on resisting. However, if data sovereignty is a big deal for you or for your customers, you may want to look elsewhere for cloud services.
New Zealand government seems relaxed about hosting non-critical data in Australia. Some ruling National Party ministers and MPs have suggested moving most data offshore as a cost-cutting measure. That could yet backfire politically, but outside of specialist circles data sovereignty doesn’t seem to excite much interest.
For my money one of the best messages in Microsoft’s announcement is that the company will offer what Mucklstone calls “geo-redundant back-up”. What that means in practice is that should the Sydney datacentre run into problems, Microsoft will switch everything to Melbourne.
Although this kind of redundancy is exactly what cloud service providers would like you to think is standard practice, it would normally cost extra.