Apple did have some market share. You're losing that. Apple didn't have ZERO market share. They had some market share. Globally it has seen a decline and thus they are losing market share.
And saying apple does or doesn't venture into the entry level market doesn't change that in places in the world people are buying more android phones. But it's also wrong. The $99 iphone is an entry level phone, the iphone c is entry level. Hell if you remotely try hard you can find and new iphone with scant memory for free on contract just like lots of entry level phones.
Cars and PC markets are simply not similar. There are many more players, product choice, and less dominant players. Not to mention you can easily switch car makers if you know how to drive. If you run a pharmaceutical company, that has in house coders that wrote proprietary software for windows to run 4 year R&D programs you're not just switching to Linux or OSX no matter what. And if you don't think Tesla is trying to take market share from bigger auto players you're naive.
Microsoft was a software company not a pc maker. Apple makes pcs and software. IBM was the company Microsoft contracted with to make PCs and offer Windows as a Dos GUI. My point is about how software ties people to a platform and did. And you conveniently ignored my statement that "i don't think it's entirely analogous."
I'm talking about software. Bottom line is Microsoft came in, licensed their OS cheaply, and dominated the PC market while Apple refused, priced their product very high, and got slaughtered on market share almost bankrupting the company. Those are facts. But again i said it's not entirely analogous so it seems strange to attack me based on something i've admitted already in the text.Even so you're attack is misguided. This is a discussion about android, an operating system, not a single manufacturer so you can't confine it to simply Samsung. Samsung can leave the phone market and there will still be tons of android phones to buy.
I stopped reading this non-sense when you started talking about the iPhone being entry level because of subsidized pricing from carriers...are you freakin' kidding me? On what planet does that qualify as relevant to this discussion? You do realize that these Android devices that are being sold on the low end of the spectrum are UNSUBSIDIZED...and under $200. Holy christ...I'm still sitting here in awe that you actually brought subsidies into this discussion...just wow.
Also, I'm not "losing" anything...Apple NEVER had ANY marketshare of the low end cellular phone market because they never sold a low end cellular phone. I don't understand how this concept is evading you.
I've never confined anything to one Android based device or company that made them...and misguided? How so? Nothing I have posted is misguided at all, in fact, it seems you're so far off the subject that you're spiraling in this weird discussion about software now. Lemme guide you back to the topic at hand so we can avoid another off kilter post from you...most Android based devices sold fall within a realm of cellular phone that someone could consider "entry"...a place that Apple does not participate because their products are upper tier...and because of that, the argument made that Android device marketshare vs. the iPhone becomes absolutely moot because the top tier Android offerings fall below the iPhone if we were to consider marketshare based on those, and obviously profit share (since Apple controls that regardless).
Please come back to us bud...you've ventured too far out of the yard.