1. Despite the enormous profit advantage, Apple does not seem able to completely knock the competition out of the high-end market. The Chinese are not as far behind in terms of features and performance as one might expect given the resource disadvantage. I think this is because Apple can't come up with enough good ideas for investing those profits back into the iPhone business. That's not a criticism, it's just the nature of a mature product -- innovations come more slowly because the opportunities for meaningful improvement are far less obvious than they were when "copy/paste" was a big new feature.
2. The Mac is a very profitable business that deserves more investment from Apple! I think it is realistic to believe that Apple could double (at least) its share of the global PC market if they tried. They should dominate the high-end of the PC market in the way they dominate the high-end of the smartphone market.
The fanaticism that use to surround and boost Apple is dying at a rate that may be unrecoverable without some serious reality distortion again.
I remember back around the turn of the century the only people still enthusiastic about Apple products were hard core cultists. They were the kinds of people who never questioned anything Apple did and believed everything Apple said. For example, the cultists really believed that a 400 MHz G4 was faster than an 1 GHz Athlon.
These days, I'm getting the impression that cultists are once again becoming a disproportionately large share of the people making positive comments about Apple.
Don't get me wrong -- things today are not nearly as bad as they were back then. But my sense is that there is a negative correlation between rationality and positive commentary on Apple these days. Five years ago, the only people saying negative things about Apple were hard core haters.
I don't subscribe. Apple is more popular than it has ever been, and there is a much smaller percentage of those consumers who are diehard enthusiasts. Yet there remains plenty of positive comments to be made about Apple due to the historic popularity and success of the company, more so than ever before.
You say "things aren't nearly as bad", I say "things aren't bad at all". I think the DOOM we hear from old apple fans (who always, always say they've been buying Apple gear since yada yada) is due to their own aging and nostalgia. The notion that things used to be better, or are getting worse, etc... It's a pessimistic view that seems to hit older people.
You'll be a grown-up someday, then maybe you'll understand.
Already am, thanks. First Apple computer I used was a ][. And I still don't think things are bad, at all -- my iphone 7 is the best phone i've ever owned, my ipad the best tablet, my MBP the best notebook, and iMac the best desktop. I'm not "concerned" about Apple's deliverables.
What was Touch ID? Apple Pay? Apple Watch - and don't try minimizing this. No one 4 years ago though that an Apple Watch would sell tens of millions of units a year and do the things it does today - mobile payments, notifications, fitness, health, ect... Home Kit. Health Kit. Did you not see what Apple is doing in the health sector and medical research? 3D touch. Airpods. Portrait mode. Innovation at Apple is alive and well.
I didn't say they had stopped innovating, I said it had slowed to a trickle. Alive and well?.... well...
Fingerprint recognition has been in the works for decades - back when years started with a 19. Motorola had it on one of their phones about 2 years before Apple. Apple Watch started its work up in the early 2000's - heck, Apple filed for a patent for a kinetic wristband w/keyboard BEFORE Steve died. Yep, I am sure it is doing far more that even he surmised it might - thanks to third party apps.
ApplePay - a masterful job.
I will give you HealthKit, CareKit, ResearchKit - fabulous frameworks...
AirPods? Portrait Mode? Not mind-blowing innovation
The only joke was the switchboard operator.
If you're honestly suggesting TouchID is not more innovative than old fingerprint readers then I have to surmise you're trolling us. It actually works. I've seen no evidence that the Watch project began in the early 2000s - source?
Airpods have so much innovation it's not even funny.
Avon B7 said, "No manufacturer of low or mid tier phones has even the slightest intention of massive profit. Comparing those profits to those of Apple serves little or no purpose."
If maximizing profits isn't the goal, then it's time for those companies to get out of the business.
The criticism of the points DED made with statements like this are pretty ridiculous.
Apple and Samsung are the only two companies capable of reliably profiting from the smartphone industry. Samsung primarily in components and Apple in the finished product and vertically integrated system.
Samsung is attempting to move to Apple's vertically integrated model much to the consternation of Google. Samsung's plan is to move off of Android all together and over to Tizen. Samsung's Tizen phone sales in India are pretty nice. And it is quite worrisome to Google. Because if Samsung is successful, the only high end players will be Apple and Samsung. And neither will be running on Android.
So it actually be self-fulfilling if the low end Android device manufacturers aren't interested in large profits. Because it won't happen. There will be Apple and Samsung. The others, including Huawei won't be playing at the high end of anything. Samsung's Gear S3 makes the Android wear watches from Huawei and LG look atrocious.
You appear to be confusing 'massive' profit with 'maximising' profit.
My point is that low to mid tier manufacturers can't get away with 30-40% margins and they know it. That isn't part of the plan.
Huawei hasn't even stretched its legs in the premium segment but has already released a phone well over the $1,000 mark and has units at all the price points down to the entry level. It took such a jump on quality with the P9 that it has allowed itself to take a breather with last week's P10 announcements which were more lifestyle focussed. Expect a bigger jump later in the year with the successor to the Mate 9 and perhaps an attack on the US market.
Sorry dude. But Huawei is in deep SHIT.
They missed profit targets in the phone division and massive layoffs are coming:
“Huawei will not pay for those that don’t work hard,” which suggests the company may start cutting back jobs. Huawei employs a total of 170,000 people, with 45% of them working on research and development. A Huawei engineer is quoted by Reuters as saying “everybody is nervous” since they know they are now at risk of being laid off.
Deep SHIT Huawei.
As Apple dominates the top end and cheap POS china phones start under pricing even cheap SHIT Huawei phones.
Huawei will quickly disappear into irrelevance like Xiaomi before it.
LOL.
Wasn't it you that said Huawei was just copying other people's hard work? And now you place a quote claiming that Huawei has 45% of its 170,000 workforce dedicated to R&D?
They should be fired on the spot as they don't actually research and develop anything, right?
Let's be serious for a moment. Until relatively recently, Huawei's mobile division didn't even exist. And now your quote claims it represents a third of their business!
Believe me, I doubt Huawei will do anything drastic until it has at least had a crack at the US market but as I said earlier, it could all unravel at any point, but the same applies to Apple.
It is well known that they are working on their own system but that's all I know. I have no idea how developed it is.
Right now Huawei is doing great even if the top brass want more. They have released a string of absolutely phenomenal phones (in both the high and low ends) to critical acclaim. They have an ARM licence and are designing their own silicon. They have probably the fastest charging technology in the business. Android 7 has borrowed from Huawei's tweaks to Android. They are creating far deeper symbiosis with their networking infrastructure which means better, stronger and more efficient use of 4G - less missed calls, more stable connections etc.
Not bad for a bunch of copy artists.
Huawei doing great? LOL. The CEO is taking about laying off tons of people because profits are not up to expectations. Face it. Cheap shit brands like Oppo will begin to steal share from Huawei by under cutting them on price.
So you think Apple has just as much chance of 'unraveling' as lowly Huawei? Stay away from drugs son. Apple has $250 billion in the bank, makes $60 billion in free cash flows a year, and has ONE BILLION loyal and rich users.
Mac users were loyal. It remains to be seen if iPhone users will be in the mid term. As for unravelling, no one is immune and those who think themselves immune are usually the last to 'get' it'.
Yes, cash in the bank buys you a lot of time but if sales slow, even a little, Apple will get overly punished in the markets and then we would see some action.
I don't subscribe. Apple is more popular than it has ever been, and there is a much smaller percentage of those consumers who are diehard enthusiasts. Yet there remains plenty of positive comments to be made about Apple due to the historic popularity and success of the company, more so than ever before.
You say "things aren't nearly as bad", I say "things aren't bad at all". I think the DOOM we hear from old apple fans (who always, always say they've been buying Apple gear since yada yada) is due to their own aging and nostalgia. The notion that things used to be better, or are getting worse, etc... It's a pessimistic view that seems to hit older people.
Apple IS more popular than it ever has been - and a MUCH smaller percentage of diehard enthusiasts. My point exactly. Apple has become more main stream. Windows users used to spit (figuratively) on Apple products of any kind - now not so much. Most have opened their eyes to a better, classier product. Saturation is the key word here, I believe.
To continue to lead, you must push the envelope, not just put more postage on it.
I'm not sure about old farts being more pessimistic... maybe.
I'm really at a loss if you're suggesting apple doesn't push the envelope. Have you already forgotten about the shitstorm that ensued when they ditched the 3.5mm audio jack? You can also thank them for USBC which is a copy of Lightning, which itself allowed them to push the envelope of smaller components and smaller devices. The layered substrate sandwich in the displays of our devices is certainly mind-blowing.
And yet Samsung is selling 40% less premium phones than just 4 years ago.......... While Apple is selling 40% more premium phones.
Its pretty obvious which company's share of premium phones is shrinking and which is growing.
Even Apple Pay was modeled after a Google product. (And Samsung Pay is better than both Apple Pay and Android Pay because it doesn't require NFC. Sorry, but it is true.).
Oh man, what a load of puckey. the magnetic Samsung Pay is less secure than Apple Pay and doesn't use tokens. And please tell us which google product AP is modeled after?
Avon B7 said, "No manufacturer of low or mid tier phones has even the slightest intention of massive profit. Comparing those profits to those of Apple serves little or no purpose."
If maximizing profits isn't the goal, then it's time for those companies to get out of the business.
The criticism of the points DED made with statements like this are pretty ridiculous.
Apple and Samsung are the only two companies capable of reliably profiting from the smartphone industry. Samsung primarily in components and Apple in the finished product and vertically integrated system.
Samsung is attempting to move to Apple's vertically integrated model much to the consternation of Google. Samsung's plan is to move off of Android all together and over to Tizen. Samsung's Tizen phone sales in India are pretty nice. And it is quite worrisome to Google. Because if Samsung is successful, the only high end players will be Apple and Samsung. And neither will be running on Android.
So it actually be self-fulfilling if the low end Android device manufacturers aren't interested in large profits. Because it won't happen. There will be Apple and Samsung. The others, including Huawei won't be playing at the high end of anything. Samsung's Gear S3 makes the Android wear watches from Huawei and LG look atrocious.
You appear to be confusing 'massive' profit with 'maximising' profit.
My point is that low to mid tier manufacturers can't get away with 30-40% margins and they know it. That isn't part of the plan.
Huawei hasn't even stretched its legs in the premium segment but has already released a phone well over the $1,000 mark and has units at all the price points down to the entry level. It took such a jump on quality with the P9 that it has allowed itself to take a breather with last week's P10 announcements which were more lifestyle focussed. Expect a bigger jump later in the year with the successor to the Mate 9 and perhaps an attack on the US market.
Sorry dude. But Huawei is in deep SHIT.
They missed profit targets in the phone division and massive layoffs are coming:
“Huawei will not pay for those that don’t work hard,” which suggests the company may start cutting back jobs. Huawei employs a total of 170,000 people, with 45% of them working on research and development. A Huawei engineer is quoted by Reuters as saying “everybody is nervous” since they know they are now at risk of being laid off.
Deep SHIT Huawei.
As Apple dominates the top end and cheap POS china phones start under pricing even cheap SHIT Huawei phones.
Huawei will quickly disappear into irrelevance like Xiaomi before it.
LOL.
Wasn't it you that said Huawei was just copying other people's hard work? And now you place a quote claiming that Huawei has 45% of its 170,000 workforce dedicated to R&D?
They should be fired on the spot as they don't actually research and develop anything, right?
Let's be serious for a moment. Until relatively recently, Huawei's mobile division didn't even exist. And now your quote claims it represents a third of their business!
Believe me, I doubt Huawei will do anything drastic until it has at least had a crack at the US market but as I said earlier, it could all unravel at any point, but the same applies to Apple.
It is well known that they are working on their own system but that's all I know. I have no idea how developed it is.
Right now Huawei is doing great even if the top brass want more. They have released a string of absolutely phenomenal phones (in both the high and low ends) to critical acclaim. They have an ARM licence and are designing their own silicon. They have probably the fastest charging technology in the business. Android 7 has borrowed from Huawei's tweaks to Android. They are creating far deeper symbiosis with their networking infrastructure which means better, stronger and more efficient use of 4G - less missed calls, more stable connections etc.
Not bad for a bunch of copy artists.
Huawei doing great? LOL. The CEO is taking about laying off tons of people because profits are not up to expectations. Face it. Cheap shit brands like Oppo will begin to steal share from Huawei by under cutting them on price.
So you think Apple has just as much chance of 'unraveling' as lowly Huawei? Stay away from drugs son. Apple has $250 billion in the bank, makes $60 billion in free cash flows a year, and has ONE BILLION loyal and rich users.
Mac users were loyal. It remains to be seen if iPhone users will be in the mid term. As for unravelling, no one is immune and those who think themselves immune are usually the last to 'get' it'.
Yes, cash in the bank buys you a lot of time but if sales slow, even a little, Apple will get overly punished in the markets and then we would see some action.
Your perception bias is showing; you are just a fanboy after all.
Avon B7 said, "No manufacturer of low or mid tier phones has even the slightest intention of massive profit. Comparing those profits to those of Apple serves little or no purpose."
If maximizing profits isn't the goal, then it's time for those companies to get out of the business.
The criticism of the points DED made with statements like this are pretty ridiculous.
Apple and Samsung are the only two companies capable of reliably profiting from the smartphone industry. Samsung primarily in components and Apple in the finished product and vertically integrated system.
Samsung is attempting to move to Apple's vertically integrated model much to the consternation of Google. Samsung's plan is to move off of Android all together and over to Tizen. Samsung's Tizen phone sales in India are pretty nice. And it is quite worrisome to Google. Because if Samsung is successful, the only high end players will be Apple and Samsung. And neither will be running on Android.
So it actually be self-fulfilling if the low end Android device manufacturers aren't interested in large profits. Because it won't happen. There will be Apple and Samsung. The others, including Huawei won't be playing at the high end of anything. Samsung's Gear S3 makes the Android wear watches from Huawei and LG look atrocious.
You appear to be confusing 'massive' profit with 'maximising' profit.
My point is that low to mid tier manufacturers can't get away with 30-40% margins and they know it. That isn't part of the plan.
Huawei hasn't even stretched its legs in the premium segment but has already released a phone well over the $1,000 mark and has units at all the price points down to the entry level. It took such a jump on quality with the P9 that it has allowed itself to take a breather with last week's P10 announcements which were more lifestyle focussed. Expect a bigger jump later in the year with the successor to the Mate 9 and perhaps an attack on the US market.
Sorry dude. But Huawei is in deep SHIT.
They missed profit targets in the phone division and massive layoffs are coming:
“Huawei will not pay for those that don’t work hard,” which suggests the company may start cutting back jobs. Huawei employs a total of 170,000 people, with 45% of them working on research and development. A Huawei engineer is quoted by Reuters as saying “everybody is nervous” since they know they are now at risk of being laid off.
Deep SHIT Huawei.
As Apple dominates the top end and cheap POS china phones start under pricing even cheap SHIT Huawei phones.
Huawei will quickly disappear into irrelevance like Xiaomi before it.
LOL.
Wasn't it you that said Huawei was just copying other people's hard work? And now you place a quote claiming that Huawei has 45% of its 170,000 workforce dedicated to R&D?
They should be fired on the spot as they don't actually research and develop anything, right?
Let's be serious for a moment. Until relatively recently, Huawei's mobile division didn't even exist. And now your quote claims it represents a third of their business!
Believe me, I doubt Huawei will do anything drastic until it has at least had a crack at the US market but as I said earlier, it could all unravel at any point, but the same applies to Apple.
It is well known that they are working on their own system but that's all I know. I have no idea how developed it is.
Right now Huawei is doing great even if the top brass want more. They have released a string of absolutely phenomenal phones (in both the high and low ends) to critical acclaim. They have an ARM licence and are designing their own silicon. They have probably the fastest charging technology in the business. Android 7 has borrowed from Huawei's tweaks to Android. They are creating far deeper symbiosis with their networking infrastructure which means better, stronger and more efficient use of 4G - less missed calls, more stable connections etc.
Not bad for a bunch of copy artists.
Huawei doing great? LOL. The CEO is taking about laying off tons of people because profits are not up to expectations. Face it. Cheap shit brands like Oppo will begin to steal share from Huawei by under cutting them on price.
So you think Apple has just as much chance of 'unraveling' as lowly Huawei? Stay away from drugs son. Apple has $250 billion in the bank, makes $60 billion in free cash flows a year, and has ONE BILLION loyal and rich users.
Mac users were loyal. It remains to be seen if iPhone users will be in the mid term. As for unravelling, no one is immune and those who think themselves immune are usually the last to 'get' it'.
Yes, cash in the bank buys you a lot of time but if sales slow, even a little, Apple will get overly punished in the markets and then we would see some action.
iPhone users are LOYAL. Satisfaction ratings are at 99% and upgrade rates are in the 90% also. Its crazy how you avoid facts.
No, Apple isn't in the same position to unravel like Huawei.
You say Apple will get punished if sales slow even a little? Guess what? Sales already slowed in 2016. Apple is still doing great and not unraveling.
Avon B7 said, "No manufacturer of low or mid tier phones has even the slightest intention of massive profit. Comparing those profits to those of Apple serves little or no purpose."
If maximizing profits isn't the goal, then it's time for those companies to get out of the business.
The criticism of the points DED made with statements like this are pretty ridiculous.
Apple and Samsung are the only two companies capable of reliably profiting from the smartphone industry. Samsung primarily in components and Apple in the finished product and vertically integrated system.
Samsung is attempting to move to Apple's vertically integrated model much to the consternation of Google. Samsung's plan is to move off of Android all together and over to Tizen. Samsung's Tizen phone sales in India are pretty nice. And it is quite worrisome to Google. Because if Samsung is successful, the only high end players will be Apple and Samsung. And neither will be running on Android.
So it actually be self-fulfilling if the low end Android device manufacturers aren't interested in large profits. Because it won't happen. There will be Apple and Samsung. The others, including Huawei won't be playing at the high end of anything. Samsung's Gear S3 makes the Android wear watches from Huawei and LG look atrocious.
You appear to be confusing 'massive' profit with 'maximising' profit.
My point is that low to mid tier manufacturers can't get away with 30-40% margins and they know it. That isn't part of the plan.
Huawei hasn't even stretched its legs in the premium segment but has already released a phone well over the $1,000 mark and has units at all the price points down to the entry level. It took such a jump on quality with the P9 that it has allowed itself to take a breather with last week's P10 announcements which were more lifestyle focussed. Expect a bigger jump later in the year with the successor to the Mate 9 and perhaps an attack on the US market.
Sorry dude. But Huawei is in deep SHIT.
They missed profit targets in the phone division and massive layoffs are coming:
“Huawei will not pay for those that don’t work hard,” which suggests the company may start cutting back jobs. Huawei employs a total of 170,000 people, with 45% of them working on research and development. A Huawei engineer is quoted by Reuters as saying “everybody is nervous” since they know they are now at risk of being laid off.
Deep SHIT Huawei.
As Apple dominates the top end and cheap POS china phones start under pricing even cheap SHIT Huawei phones.
Huawei will quickly disappear into irrelevance like Xiaomi before it.
LOL.
Wasn't it you that said Huawei was just copying other people's hard work? And now you place a quote claiming that Huawei has 45% of its 170,000 workforce dedicated to R&D?
They should be fired on the spot as they don't actually research and develop anything, right?
Let's be serious for a moment. Until relatively recently, Huawei's mobile division didn't even exist. And now your quote claims it represents a third of their business!
Believe me, I doubt Huawei will do anything drastic until it has at least had a crack at the US market but as I said earlier, it could all unravel at any point, but the same applies to Apple.
It is well known that they are working on their own system but that's all I know. I have no idea how developed it is.
Right now Huawei is doing great even if the top brass want more. They have released a string of absolutely phenomenal phones (in both the high and low ends) to critical acclaim. They have an ARM licence and are designing their own silicon. They have probably the fastest charging technology in the business. Android 7 has borrowed from Huawei's tweaks to Android. They are creating far deeper symbiosis with their networking infrastructure which means better, stronger and more efficient use of 4G - less missed calls, more stable connections etc.
Not bad for a bunch of copy artists.
Huawei doing great? LOL. The CEO is taking about laying off tons of people because profits are not up to expectations. Face it. Cheap shit brands like Oppo will begin to steal share from Huawei by under cutting them on price.
So you think Apple has just as much chance of 'unraveling' as lowly Huawei? Stay away from drugs son. Apple has $250 billion in the bank, makes $60 billion in free cash flows a year, and has ONE BILLION loyal and rich users.
Mac users were loyal. It remains to be seen if iPhone users will be in the mid term. As for unravelling, no one is immune and those who think themselves immune are usually the last to 'get' it'.
Yes, cash in the bank buys you a lot of time but if sales slow, even a little, Apple will get overly punished in the markets and then we would see some action.
iPhone users are LOYAL. Satisfaction ratings are at 99% and upgrade rates are in the 90% also. Its crazy how you avoid facts.
No, Apple isn't in the same position to unravel like Huawei.
You say Apple will get punished if sales slow even a little? Guess what? Sales already slowed in 2016. Apple is still doing great and not unraveling.
Yes. That's why I mentioned it. Sales slowed and everyone threw a wobbly. iPhone 8 should inject new momentum but after that...?
Satisfaction has been good up now and loyalty in the US too. Not so in some other markets.
Huawei unravels and goes back to its core business. Apple unravels and where does it go? Back to Mac?
One possible reason for Huawei not currently pushing into the US may be certification of the modem they use, which, the last time I heard, was being processed by the relevant US authorities.
sog35 said:Yes. That's why I mentioned it. Sales slowed and everyone threw a wobbly. iPhone 8 should inject new momentum but after that...?
Satisfaction has been good up now and loyalty in the US too. Not so in some other markets.
Huawei unravels and goes back to its core business. Apple unravels and where does it go? Back to Mac?
One possible reason for Huawei not currently pushing into the US may be certification of the modem they use, which, the last time I heard, was being processed by the relevant US authorities.
I'm not seeing any of what you state in any search, so I have to assign your post, BS, 10th order.
sog35 said:Yes. That's why I mentioned it. Sales slowed and everyone threw a wobbly. iPhone 8 should inject new momentum but after that...?
Satisfaction has been good up now and loyalty in the US too. Not so in some other markets.
Huawei unravels and goes back to its core business. Apple unravels and where does it go? Back to Mac?
One possible reason for Huawei not currently pushing into the US may be certification of the modem they use, which, the last time I heard, was being processed by the relevant US authorities.
I'm not seeing any of what you state in any search, so I have to assign your post, BS, 10th order.
Five seconds. Google. I've only read the first few lines. Looks interesting.
"we spoke with HiSilicon to confirm that this is a brand new custom CDMA solution, rather than a licensed platform. The value of CDMA is mixed, although a required element with certain carriers in China and the US, such that Huawei can now offer devices with the Kirin 960 can compete. It should be pointed out that CDMA certification for the US via the FCC takes 18-24 months, and I was unable to confirm when the process was started, so we may have to wait another year for a US-focused CDMA devices."
Avon B7 said, "No manufacturer of low or mid tier phones has even the slightest intention of massive profit. Comparing those profits to those of Apple serves little or no purpose."
If maximizing profits isn't the goal, then it's time for those companies to get out of the business.
The criticism of the points DED made with statements like this are pretty ridiculous.
Apple and Samsung are the only two companies capable of reliably profiting from the smartphone industry. Samsung primarily in components and Apple in the finished product and vertically integrated system.
Samsung is attempting to move to Apple's vertically integrated model much to the consternation of Google. Samsung's plan is to move off of Android all together and over to Tizen. Samsung's Tizen phone sales in India are pretty nice. And it is quite worrisome to Google. Because if Samsung is successful, the only high end players will be Apple and Samsung. And neither will be running on Android.
So it actually be self-fulfilling if the low end Android device manufacturers aren't interested in large profits. Because it won't happen. There will be Apple and Samsung. The others, including Huawei won't be playing at the high end of anything. Samsung's Gear S3 makes the Android wear watches from Huawei and LG look atrocious.
You appear to be confusing 'massive' profit with 'maximising' profit.
My point is that low to mid tier manufacturers can't get away with 30-40% margins and they know it. That isn't part of the plan.
Huawei hasn't even stretched its legs in the premium segment but has already released a phone well over the $1,000 mark and has units at all the price points down to the entry level. It took such a jump on quality with the P9 that it has allowed itself to take a breather with last week's P10 announcements which were more lifestyle focussed. Expect a bigger jump later in the year with the successor to the Mate 9 and perhaps an attack on the US market.
Sorry dude. But Huawei is in deep SHIT.
They missed profit targets in the phone division and massive layoffs are coming:
“Huawei will not pay for those that don’t work hard,” which suggests the company may start cutting back jobs. Huawei employs a total of 170,000 people, with 45% of them working on research and development. A Huawei engineer is quoted by Reuters as saying “everybody is nervous” since they know they are now at risk of being laid off.
Deep SHIT Huawei.
As Apple dominates the top end and cheap POS china phones start under pricing even cheap SHIT Huawei phones.
Huawei will quickly disappear into irrelevance like Xiaomi before it.
You do know that Huawei is a government funded business entity, as long as Huawei is doing things which the China government feels is in the best interest of the country they will be fine and will be around for a while longer. It has nothing to do with whether they are making money or not. As far as I know Xiaomi does not fall into the Huawei category of business in China. I do not know how the Government see them in the big scheme of things.
and Apple makes an increasingly large profit from services including the App Store were Android makers have a very hard time making anything at all.
This is the problem with Android, and Windows has gone through the same type of thing. Android phones have turned into a commodity. There is very little money to be made in selling the hardware. Everyone is fighting each other to sell the phones and so prices drop down to nothing. So then like windows, you throw on 3rd party crapware because you get a little money from that which is better then breaking even or losing money. People don't like that crap on their phones. The only real winner with Android is Google because they're making money from their services and from Ad's. Google doesn't care if you make money selling Android phones or not, Google still wins. If you disappear, there's always someone else to take your place. Google still wins. Google's services have to be up front and center.
Other company's are trying to offer their own things. Samesung had done their MILK Music service thing which has failed. They're trying to make money with Samesung Pay, which in the end will fail over Android Pay. Google is trying to sell their Pixel phones at iPhone prices. I don't think they're selling all that many of them. Android all this time has been marketed as the CHEAP phones. Why would you then turn around, stop selling cheap NEXUS phones and sell iPhone priced Pixel phones? It's just not going to work well.
China is the exception to the rule so much in that Google doesn't have a presence in China. So people there are going to 3rd party App stores. Pirating like crazy and Viruses are running rampant there. You can fork Android, but then you can't use Google's services and there's a lot of other Negatives to go along with it. Amazon tried with their Fire Phone and it bombed. The EU is trying to do something about it, but I don't see how. There's no money in selling low end to mid range phones.
Who would you rather be, Android (Everyone) selling 1 BILLION Android phones and breaking even or Apple selling 1 iPhone and making a $50 profit? How about 10 billion for Android, still breaking even, or 10 iPhones making a $500 profit. So who's winning? Well the Investors and Android fanboys will say Android, they have a huge Market share over Apple, Look 10 billion Android phones to 10 iphones. Not even close. While everyone else with a brain will say Apple WON. They actually made a $500 profit and only had to sell 10 iPhones to do it. You've heard the saying, "Work Smarter, not harder!" What is Market Share in the phone industry getting you?
Forgive me for taking a simplistic approach but there is an angle you haven't touched on. Android handsets sell 10 billion. Let's run with that notion but forget Google, Apple, Samsung etc. just for a second. Let's forget the profits or lack of them. That means 10 billion people got a phone and it serves their use, for better or worse, but it satisfies their use. That angle is key.
Let's put the manufacturers back in and we see Apple were ignored by 10 billion shoppers.
Should Apple stay premium and ignore those 10 billion users and hope there are enough left to keep buying high margin, premium phones well into the future, or move into a lower tier in the hope of selling much more units?
Will the main future earnings drivers be unit sales or services?
If services are going to make up an ever increasing part of revenues, doesn't it make sense to have the largest possible pool to feed off? Surely that pool implies getting a lot of the 10 billion onto your platform or should Apple open up its platform to Android users?
There are lots of possible scenarios but most of the ones that involve services require the highest possible share to feed off. The same logic applies to 'home kit' style devices.
I'm in the camp that says smartphones have hit the comfort zone and shoppers can get far more than they ever could out of a mid tier phone and that premium prices will be a harder sell in a saturated market with a decent spread of top class phones. Past the iPhone 8/7s I see Apple having a harder time shifting units in the premium segment.
Not all users are equal.
Android may have more users but iOS still destroys in in App sales.
A customer who buys a $99 cheap phone brings very little profit to anyone. You seriously think someone who buys a cheap $99 phone will pay for services? LOL
And a $250 phone? Some services are paid, others aren't but are monetised nonetheless.
Come on. Just stop.
Android has 400% more marketshare than iOS. Yet their App revenue is HALF of iOS.
just stop. Its obvious that cheap phone buyers don't want to pay for services.
On average an iPhone users spends 800% more on Apps than an Android user.
All your comments are theories based on ZERO facts.
Ever wondered why people even develop for Android?
You are stating what is more than common knowledge but before firing off, please answer my question.
I will repeat what I said earlier:
"Some services are paid, others aren't but are monetised nonetheless"
Think about it.
The reality is even though the App Store rakes in more revenue than the Play Store, there is still money to be made. Your bank will provide an app for your phone for 'free' but you are still 'paying' for it. Every time a user carries out a Google search, Google is making money. Many Apps carry ads, some are paid apps, etc
It may shock you to hear, but people do spend money on Android Apps and in spite of the seemingly negative operating environment (fragmentation included), there are an enormous amount of Android Apps available.
sog35 said:Yes. That's why I mentioned it. Sales slowed and everyone threw a wobbly. iPhone 8 should inject new momentum but after that...?
Satisfaction has been good up now and loyalty in the US too. Not so in some other markets.
Huawei unravels and goes back to its core business. Apple unravels and where does it go? Back to Mac?
One possible reason for Huawei not currently pushing into the US may be certification of the modem they use, which, the last time I heard, was being processed by the relevant US authorities.
I'm not seeing any of what you state in any search, so I have to assign your post, BS, 10th order.
Five seconds. Google. I've only read the first few lines. Looks interesting.
"we spoke with HiSilicon to confirm that this is a brand new custom CDMA solution, rather than a licensed platform. The value of CDMA is mixed, although a required element with certain carriers in China and the US, such that Huawei can now offer devices with the Kirin 960 can compete. It should be pointed out that CDMA certification for the US via the FCC takes 18-24 months, and I was unable to confirm when the process was started, so we may have to wait another year for a US-focused CDMA devices."
After a first reading, it seems the biggest roadblock to Huawei's progress in the US is political, not commercial.
I'd speculate that use of a Qualcomm processor would have been an easier task for Huawei, but the result very well might be the same. Huawei has too many close ties to the Chinese Government.
1. Despite the enormous profit advantage, Apple does not seem able to completely knock the competition out of the high-end market. The Chinese are not as far behind in terms of features and performance as one might expect given the resource disadvantage. I think this is because Apple can't come up with enough good ideas for investing those profits back into the iPhone business. That's not a criticism, it's just the nature of a mature product -- innovations come more slowly because the opportunities for meaningful improvement are far less obvious than they were when "copy/paste" was a big new feature.
2. The Mac is a very profitable business that deserves more investment from Apple! I think it is realistic to believe that Apple could double (at least) its share of the global PC market if they tried. They should dominate the high-end of the PC market in the way they dominate the high-end of the smartphone market.
On #1, there is a lot more to the "high-end" than speeds, feeds, and point features. Compared with Chinese brands Apple continues to have a lead in the h/w product itself - specifically in custom silicon, cameras, biometrics - and also security, reliability, and of course that "ecosystem".
On #2, I agree that Apple does have room to grow in the "PC" market, although that is a declining market itself. Apple already dominates the high-end here - I have seen some stats like 80% of units over $1000 USD in the past (maybe that is down a little bit given the longer cycles of updates?). An updated Mac Pro would be useful to keep the "video/photo" Pro market engaged with Apple more, but it would not move the needle on either revenues or units within the Mac business itself. The primary area for Apple to grow the Mac line is in the next level of the consumer & business tier - an entry level $799 MacBook based on A-Series processors could grow sales (profitably).
Apple should make an iOSBook on the low end not MacOS. iOS is the Operating system that 1 Billion iPhone users know and hundreds of millions o iPad users know. Apple probably needs to add mouse or TrackPad support. Two model levels are need: 1) Entry/Education using PolyCarbonate body with 9.7 inch screen and A9 chip at $249 and 2) iOSBook Pro with i10 and either 9.7 or 12.9 screen size and mouse/pen support starting at $799/$899.
What was Touch ID? Apple Pay? Apple Watch - and don't try minimizing this. No one 4 years ago though that an Apple Watch would sell tens of millions of units a year and do the things it does today - mobile payments, notifications, fitness, health, ect... Home Kit. Health Kit. Did you not see what Apple is doing in the health sector and medical research? 3D touch. Airpods. Portrait mode. Innovation at Apple is alive and well.
I didn't say they had stopped innovating, I said it had slowed to a trickle. Alive and well?.... well...
Fingerprint recognition has been in the works for decades - back when years started with a 19. Motorola had it on one of their phones about 2 years before Apple. Apple Watch started its work up in the early 2000's - heck, Apple filed for a patent for a kinetic wristband w/keyboard BEFORE Steve died. Yep, I am sure it is doing far more that even he surmised it might - thanks to third party apps.
ApplePay - a masterful job.
I will give you HealthKit, CareKit, ResearchKit - fabulous frameworks...
AirPods? Portrait Mode? Not mind-blowing innovation
The only joke was the switchboard operator.
If you're honestly suggesting TouchID is not more innovative than old fingerprint readers then I have to surmise you're trolling us. It actually works. I've seen no evidence that the Watch project began in the early 2000s - source?
Airpods have so much innovation it's not even funny.
I did not suggest that TouchID was not more innovative than old fingerprint readers. That was Sog35 sounding like Apple had developed the concept. Sure the original was crappy, but at the time it was innovative and it was on the way up.
What was Touch ID? Apple Pay? Apple Watch - and don't try minimizing this. No one 4 years ago though that an Apple Watch would sell tens of millions of units a year and do the things it does today - mobile payments, notifications, fitness, health, ect... Home Kit. Health Kit. Did you not see what Apple is doing in the health sector and medical research? 3D touch. Airpods. Portrait mode. Innovation at Apple is alive and well.
I didn't say they had stopped innovating, I said it had slowed to a trickle. Alive and well?.... well...
Fingerprint recognition has been in the works for decades - back when years started with a 19. Motorola had it on one of their phones about 2 years before Apple. Apple Watch started its work up in the early 2000's - heck, Apple filed for a patent for a kinetic wristband w/keyboard BEFORE Steve died. Yep, I am sure it is doing far more that even he surmised it might - thanks to third party apps.
ApplePay - a masterful job.
I will give you HealthKit, CareKit, ResearchKit - fabulous frameworks...
AirPods? Portrait Mode? Not mind-blowing innovation
The only joke was the switchboard operator.
If you're honestly suggesting TouchID is not more innovative than old fingerprint readers then I have to surmise you're trolling us. It actually works. I've seen no evidence that the Watch project began in the early 2000s - source?
Airpods have so much innovation it's not even funny.
I did not suggest that TouchID was not more innovative than old fingerprint readers. That was Sog35 sounding like Apple had developed the concept. Sure the original was crappy, but at the time it was innovative and it was on the way up.
Read my original post - and the post I was responding to.
My point is/was that, in my opinion, Apples innovation has not left people speechless in a number of years. It needs to do that again.
I read your post. You plainly indicated Apple's innovation supposedly dropped to a trickle, and as evidence of that presented the fact that fingerprint sensors existed before TouchID, never mind that they completed sucked and thus failed as an example since by contrast TouchID is obviously a wonderful innovation. You likewise presented the notion that Watch was in development from the early 2000s, which I think is also bunk. While the 2013 article does reference a 2009 patent for a wearable, it isn't the Watch or even a watch. But in any event I fail to understand how a 2009 patent (even if it were for the Watch) somehow means Apple isn't innovating.
Again, innovation doesn't mean brand new products or tentpole features. The technology in Apple gear gets smaller and more capable, and that is the true innovation. The various substrate layers sandwiched into the display tech of new devices is incredible, and doesnt develop itself or fall off trees fully formed. Apple is pushing this stuff forward -- displays, touch, wearables... And this is why people line up for days to buy their stuff as early as possible.
Avon B7 said, "No manufacturer of low or mid tier phones has even the slightest intention of massive profit. Comparing those profits to those of Apple serves little or no purpose."
If maximizing profits isn't the goal, then it's time for those companies to get out of the business.
The criticism of the points DED made with statements like this are pretty ridiculous.
Apple and Samsung are the only two companies capable of reliably profiting from the smartphone industry. Samsung primarily in components and Apple in the finished product and vertically integrated system.
Samsung is attempting to move to Apple's vertically integrated model much to the consternation of Google. Samsung's plan is to move off of Android all together and over to Tizen. Samsung's Tizen phone sales in India are pretty nice. And it is quite worrisome to Google. Because if Samsung is successful, the only high end players will be Apple and Samsung. And neither will be running on Android.
So it actually be self-fulfilling if the low end Android device manufacturers aren't interested in large profits. Because it won't happen. There will be Apple and Samsung. The others, including Huawei won't be playing at the high end of anything. Samsung's Gear S3 makes the Android wear watches from Huawei and LG look atrocious.
You appear to be confusing 'massive' profit with 'maximising' profit.
My point is that low to mid tier manufacturers can't get away with 30-40% margins and they know it. That isn't part of the plan.
Huawei hasn't even stretched its legs in the premium segment but has already released a phone well over the $1,000 mark and has units at all the price points down to the entry level. It took such a jump on quality with the P9 that it has allowed itself to take a breather with last week's P10 announcements which were more lifestyle focussed. Expect a bigger jump later in the year with the successor to the Mate 9 and perhaps an attack on the US market.
Sorry dude. But Huawei is in deep SHIT.
They missed profit targets in the phone division and massive layoffs are coming:
“Huawei will not pay for those that don’t work hard,” which suggests the company may start cutting back jobs. Huawei employs a total of 170,000 people, with 45% of them working on research and development. A Huawei engineer is quoted by Reuters as saying “everybody is nervous” since they know they are now at risk of being laid off.
Deep SHIT Huawei.
As Apple dominates the top end and cheap POS china phones start under pricing even cheap SHIT Huawei phones.
Huawei will quickly disappear into irrelevance like Xiaomi before it.
You do know that Huawei is a government funded business entity, as long as Huawei is doing things which the China government feels is in the best interest of the country they will be fine and will be around for a while longer. It has nothing to do with whether they are making money or not. As far as I know Xiaomi does not fall into the Huawei category of business in China. I do not know how the Government see them in the big scheme of things.
and Apple makes an increasingly large profit from services including the App Store were Android makers have a very hard time making anything at all.
This is the problem with Android, and Windows has gone through the same type of thing. Android phones have turned into a commodity. There is very little money to be made in selling the hardware. Everyone is fighting each other to sell the phones and so prices drop down to nothing. So then like windows, you throw on 3rd party crapware because you get a little money from that which is better then breaking even or losing money. People don't like that crap on their phones. The only real winner with Android is Google because they're making money from their services and from Ad's. Google doesn't care if you make money selling Android phones or not, Google still wins. If you disappear, there's always someone else to take your place. Google still wins. Google's services have to be up front and center.
Other company's are trying to offer their own things. Samesung had done their MILK Music service thing which has failed. They're trying to make money with Samesung Pay, which in the end will fail over Android Pay. Google is trying to sell their Pixel phones at iPhone prices. I don't think they're selling all that many of them. Android all this time has been marketed as the CHEAP phones. Why would you then turn around, stop selling cheap NEXUS phones and sell iPhone priced Pixel phones? It's just not going to work well.
China is the exception to the rule so much in that Google doesn't have a presence in China. So people there are going to 3rd party App stores. Pirating like crazy and Viruses are running rampant there. You can fork Android, but then you can't use Google's services and there's a lot of other Negatives to go along with it. Amazon tried with their Fire Phone and it bombed. The EU is trying to do something about it, but I don't see how. There's no money in selling low end to mid range phones.
Who would you rather be, Android (Everyone) selling 1 BILLION Android phones and breaking even or Apple selling 1 iPhone and making a $50 profit? How about 10 billion for Android, still breaking even, or 10 iPhones making a $500 profit. So who's winning? Well the Investors and Android fanboys will say Android, they have a huge Market share over Apple, Look 10 billion Android phones to 10 iphones. Not even close. While everyone else with a brain will say Apple WON. They actually made a $500 profit and only had to sell 10 iPhones to do it. You've heard the saying, "Work Smarter, not harder!" What is Market Share in the phone industry getting you?
Forgive me for taking a simplistic approach but there is an angle you haven't touched on. Android handsets sell 10 billion. Let's run with that notion but forget Google, Apple, Samsung etc. just for a second. Let's forget the profits or lack of them. That means 10 billion people got a phone and it serves their use, for better or worse, but it satisfies their use. That angle is key.
Let's put the manufacturers back in and we see Apple were ignored by 10 billion shoppers.
Should Apple stay premium and ignore those 10 billion users and hope there are enough left to keep buying high margin, premium phones well into the future, or move into a lower tier in the hope of selling much more units?
Will the main future earnings drivers be unit sales or services?
If services are going to make up an ever increasing part of revenues, doesn't it make sense to have the largest possible pool to feed off? Surely that pool implies getting a lot of the 10 billion onto your platform or should Apple open up its platform to Android users?
There are lots of possible scenarios but most of the ones that involve services require the highest possible share to feed off. The same logic applies to 'home kit' style devices.
I'm in the camp that says smartphones have hit the comfort zone and shoppers can get far more than they ever could out of a mid tier phone and that premium prices will be a harder sell in a saturated market with a decent spread of top class phones. Past the iPhone 8/7s I see Apple having a harder time shifting units in the premium segment.
Here is the subtle point you missed, if all Apple was selling was a more expensive phone, your view would be correct there would be no way Apple could maintain the higher price and all suppliers will be in the race to the bottom and only those who can remove all inefficiency out of their operations wins and it truly becomes about who make more widgets.
However, Apple is the only company who is selling an experience, they selling their entire eco-system and their value add. Plus with a premium product come Apple premium experience from the minute you walk in their stores to the point you open box to every day you use the product. No other company is doing this they are all selling on list of feature and price point. There are whole class of consumers who will always buy Apple due to the experience.
And yet Samsung is selling 40% less premium phones than just 4 years ago.......... While Apple is selling 40% more premium phones.
Its pretty obvious which company's share of premium phones is shrinking and which is growing.
Even Apple Pay was modeled after a Google product. (And Samsung Pay is better than both Apple Pay and Android Pay because it doesn't require NFC. Sorry, but it is true.).
Oh man, what a load of puckey. the magnetic Samsung Pay is less secure than Apple Pay and doesn't use tokens. And please tell us which google product AP is modeled after?
Freeper, you do realize the technology Samsung is relying on the magnetic card swipe if going away, especially if your CC already has the Chip on the card. Even today if you swipe the card and it has the chip the POS will reject it and ask you put the card into the slot, With Apple pay you do not have to do this. I have seen people use Samsung Pay, it not easier it take them 2 to 3 times as long to pay then it does when I use Apple pay. This is real world experience not marketing hype from Samsung.
The only things in commond with Apple pay and any other systems out there is the NFC protocol which was a standard out there which Google or Samsung did not come up with. NFC was done for exactly what Apple and others were using it for. The rest is completely different.
Avon B7 said, "No manufacturer of low or mid tier phones has even the slightest intention of massive profit. Comparing those profits to those of Apple serves little or no purpose."
If maximizing profits isn't the goal, then it's time for those companies to get out of the business.
The criticism of the points DED made with statements like this are pretty ridiculous.
Apple and Samsung are the only two companies capable of reliably profiting from the smartphone industry. Samsung primarily in components and Apple in the finished product and vertically integrated system.
Samsung is attempting to move to Apple's vertically integrated model much to the consternation of Google. Samsung's plan is to move off of Android all together and over to Tizen. Samsung's Tizen phone sales in India are pretty nice. And it is quite worrisome to Google. Because if Samsung is successful, the only high end players will be Apple and Samsung. And neither will be running on Android.
So it actually be self-fulfilling if the low end Android device manufacturers aren't interested in large profits. Because it won't happen. There will be Apple and Samsung. The others, including Huawei won't be playing at the high end of anything. Samsung's Gear S3 makes the Android wear watches from Huawei and LG look atrocious.
You appear to be confusing 'massive' profit with 'maximising' profit.
My point is that low to mid tier manufacturers can't get away with 30-40% margins and they know it. That isn't part of the plan.
Huawei hasn't even stretched its legs in the premium segment but has already released a phone well over the $1,000 mark and has units at all the price points down to the entry level. It took such a jump on quality with the P9 that it has allowed itself to take a breather with last week's P10 announcements which were more lifestyle focussed. Expect a bigger jump later in the year with the successor to the Mate 9 and perhaps an attack on the US market.
Sorry dude. But Huawei is in deep SHIT.
They missed profit targets in the phone division and massive layoffs are coming:
“Huawei will not pay for those that don’t work hard,” which suggests the company may start cutting back jobs. Huawei employs a total of 170,000 people, with 45% of them working on research and development. A Huawei engineer is quoted by Reuters as saying “everybody is nervous” since they know they are now at risk of being laid off.
Deep SHIT Huawei.
As Apple dominates the top end and cheap POS china phones start under pricing even cheap SHIT Huawei phones.
Huawei will quickly disappear into irrelevance like Xiaomi before it.
You do know that Huawei is a government funded business entity, as long as Huawei is doing things which the China government feels is in the best interest of the country they will be fine and will be around for a while longer. It has nothing to do with whether they are making money or not. As far as I know Xiaomi does not fall into the Huawei category of business in China. I do not know how the Government see them in the big scheme of things.
and Apple makes an increasingly large profit from services including the App Store were Android makers have a very hard time making anything at all.
This is the problem with Android, and Windows has gone through the same type of thing. Android phones have turned into a commodity. There is very little money to be made in selling the hardware. Everyone is fighting each other to sell the phones and so prices drop down to nothing. So then like windows, you throw on 3rd party crapware because you get a little money from that which is better then breaking even or losing money. People don't like that crap on their phones. The only real winner with Android is Google because they're making money from their services and from Ad's. Google doesn't care if you make money selling Android phones or not, Google still wins. If you disappear, there's always someone else to take your place. Google still wins. Google's services have to be up front and center.
Other company's are trying to offer their own things. Samesung had done their MILK Music service thing which has failed. They're trying to make money with Samesung Pay, which in the end will fail over Android Pay. Google is trying to sell their Pixel phones at iPhone prices. I don't think they're selling all that many of them. Android all this time has been marketed as the CHEAP phones. Why would you then turn around, stop selling cheap NEXUS phones and sell iPhone priced Pixel phones? It's just not going to work well.
China is the exception to the rule so much in that Google doesn't have a presence in China. So people there are going to 3rd party App stores. Pirating like crazy and Viruses are running rampant there. You can fork Android, but then you can't use Google's services and there's a lot of other Negatives to go along with it. Amazon tried with their Fire Phone and it bombed. The EU is trying to do something about it, but I don't see how. There's no money in selling low end to mid range phones.
Who would you rather be, Android (Everyone) selling 1 BILLION Android phones and breaking even or Apple selling 1 iPhone and making a $50 profit? How about 10 billion for Android, still breaking even, or 10 iPhones making a $500 profit. So who's winning? Well the Investors and Android fanboys will say Android, they have a huge Market share over Apple, Look 10 billion Android phones to 10 iphones. Not even close. While everyone else with a brain will say Apple WON. They actually made a $500 profit and only had to sell 10 iPhones to do it. You've heard the saying, "Work Smarter, not harder!" What is Market Share in the phone industry getting you?
Forgive me for taking a simplistic approach but there is an angle you haven't touched on. Android handsets sell 10 billion. Let's run with that notion but forget Google, Apple, Samsung etc. just for a second. Let's forget the profits or lack of them. That means 10 billion people got a phone and it serves their use, for better or worse, but it satisfies their use. That angle is key.
Let's put the manufacturers back in and we see Apple were ignored by 10 billion shoppers.
Should Apple stay premium and ignore those 10 billion users and hope there are enough left to keep buying high margin, premium phones well into the future, or move into a lower tier in the hope of selling much more units?
Will the main future earnings drivers be unit sales or services?
If services are going to make up an ever increasing part of revenues, doesn't it make sense to have the largest possible pool to feed off? Surely that pool implies getting a lot of the 10 billion onto your platform or should Apple open up its platform to Android users?
There are lots of possible scenarios but most of the ones that involve services require the highest possible share to feed off. The same logic applies to 'home kit' style devices.
I'm in the camp that says smartphones have hit the comfort zone and shoppers can get far more than they ever could out of a mid tier phone and that premium prices will be a harder sell in a saturated market with a decent spread of top class phones. Past the iPhone 8/7s I see Apple having a harder time shifting units in the premium segment.
Here is the subtle point you missed, if all Apple was selling was a more expensive phone, your view would be correct there would be no way Apple could maintain the higher price and all suppliers will be in the race to the bottom and only those who can remove all inefficiency out of their operations wins and it truly becomes about who make more widgets.
However, Apple is the only company who is selling an experience, they selling their entire eco-system and their value add. Plus with a premium product come Apple premium experience from the minute you walk in their stores to the point you open box to every day you use the product. No other company is doing this they are all selling on list of feature and price point. There are whole class of consumers who will always buy Apple due to the experience.
I know what you are saying. I see your point but take a look at the link I included further up on Huawei.
Finland was Nokia paradise in 'feature" phone land. Then phones went 'smart' and the top dog became a lame dog in record time.
Things theb went massively Apple and Samsung premium and it was a new 'smart' paradise.
This is Finland. Top notch education system. Top notch communications. A model in many senses. Users know what they are buying.
When unknown Huawei landed in Finland it took them just eighteen months to spread. Selling ten times as many phones as Apple.
They basically took over sales in The Netherlands and Portugal. They are dominant in Spain etc.
The 'ecosystem' did little to stem the tide. Apple has been brushed aside and 60% of Huawei sales are reportedly in the mid to high end.
The above example is Finland, not Equador (no offence meant). The people buying Huawei are taking well considered purchasing decisions and have reasonable incomes.
Something clearly isn't going to plan for Apple in some markets - even if they are currently sweeping up the lion's share of profits.
Apple does realize healthy gross margins on iPhones. There are multiple reasons for that, to include its product mix. Apple sells mostly premium smartphones, the kind that sell at prices which represent healthy margins. Apple also benefits from having established a thriving retail distribution channel of its own. That allows it to keep more of the retail price of its products for itself, leaving less of it for third-party retailers. Generally speaking, individual third-party retailers need Apple more than Apple needs them.
Its maintaining healthy gross margins isn't the only reason Apple realizes such a large share of smartphone industry profits though. Other companies, to varying degrees of course, likely have nice gross margins as well when it comes to the premium smartphones that they sell. Companies don't typically report gross margins for particular product categories, so we have deduce them to some extent (just as we do with Apple). But Samsung, e.g., has company-wide gross margins that are roughly equal to those of Apple. Huawei has gross margins which are better than Apple's, though I don't think the same can yet be said of its smartphone business. Again, they don't report gross margins by product category but we can figure from what they do report that smartphone margins (at least for Huawei) are lower than what Apple's likely are (and, for Huawei, substantially lower than its company-wide margins), but still real margins. For Huawei, its smartphone product mix has been improving - a larger portion of its sales are of mid-level and premium smartphones - so its overall smartphone margins are likely improving. It is getting a foothold in the premium and mid-level smartphone market. Huawei likely won't report its full year 2016 results for a few weeks. It will be interesting to see what kind of growth it had and how much its product mix improved, but for the first half of the year its growth continued to be impressive. Regardless, the important reality remains: Apple is dominant in the premium smartphone market and thus realizes a great deal of gross profit (and would even if its gross margins for premium smartphones were the same as others'). It generated considerably more revenue from iPhones last year than Samsung did from all of its mobile devices, even though Samsung sold considerably more smartphones.
But as I suggested, gross margins are only part of the picture when it comes to profitability - operating expenses are important as well. Perhaps the greater differentiator between Apple and some others (when it comes to profitability) is the impact of operating expenses. Those are expenses beyond the cost of goods sold which affects gross margins and gross profit. That is where much of Apple's (relative) profitability comes from. For one thing, Apple's large gross profits (due in part to the high volume of premium smartphones that it sells) exert a lot of leverage on its operating expenses as the latter don't rise dollar for dollar with the former. Apple also seems to be more efficient when it comes to certain operating expenses than some of its competitors are.
Samsung's total revenue for its FY 2016 was 81% of what Apple's was for its FY 2016 and its gross profit was 84% of Apple's (i.e. it had a bit better gross margin). But its operating expenses were nearly double those of Apple. (We're talking about company-wide numbers here; a similar dynamic would have played out on a product category level though the comparisons would obviously change some.) It spent more on R&D and far more on SG&A (selling, general and administrative) than Apple did even though it had less in total sales. That's where the profitability disparity comes from. Samsung's gross profit was $71 billion compared with Apple's $84 billion, but 64% of Samsung's gross profit was eaten up by R&D and SG&A while only 29% of Apples' was. Samsung spent 7% and 19% of its revenue on R&D and SG&A respectively. Apple spent 5% and 7%. If Apple's R&D and SG&A spending levels were the same as Samsung's, half its operating profit would dissapear. Apple as a company is more efficient. For a huge company Apple is remarkably efficient. That, combined of course with creating very desired products which people are willing to pay a lot of money for, is what drive's Apple's profitability.
As I suggested we don't have full year 2016 numbers for Huawei to compare to, but we can look at their 2015 numbers (and Apple's FY 2015 numbers). Most of Huawei's business is not mobile devices, but an increasing share of it is. Anyway, Huawei spent more on R&D in 2015 than Apple did, $8.6 billion to $8.1 billion, even though it had less than a quarter of Apple's total revenue, $57 billion to $234 billion (based on current exchange rates). Huawei spent 15% of its revenue on R&D and 16% of its revenue on SG&A, Apple spent 3% and 6%. So Huawei's 42% gross margin (again, for smartphones the gross margin would have been significantly lower, especially with a much worse product mix back then) turned into a 12% operating margin while Apple's 40% gross margin turned into a 30% operating margin.
TL;DR: Yes, Apple's gross margins matter when it comes to its profitability. For various reasons, including its more desirable product mix (e.g. it sells mostly premium smartphones), it enjoys high gross margins. But its profitability is also largely driven by its operational efficiency (even without taking into account the incremental costs of building its products, its production efficiency if you will). It spends less on R&D and much less on SG&A and thus retains a much larger portion of its gross profits as operating profits.
Sorry @AvonB7, but I don't really know where your post is going. The fact of the matter is, regardless of what companies are desiring to do, that there is a set amount of profits to be made. Apple is getting the lions' share of those profits. I don't really care, as a shareholder for instance, what someone who is lower tier is trying to do. It doesn't effect Apple's final share of that profit pie significantly.
If I sell 10 widgets a year, each with $3 profits, I've made $30 in profits.
If you sell 50 widgets in a year, each with $0.25 profits, you've made $12.50 in profits.
I come out with just under 71% of the profits.
At least as a shareholder, I don't see how it can get any simpler than that. And it's not like these low-end units are raking in the outside profits, like content and apps and the rest.
And Huawei -- even growing "significantly" -- would have to make that REMARKABLY significant as a "disruptive" change if they are starting from 1.6%.
Comments
If you're honestly suggesting TouchID is not more innovative than old fingerprint readers then I have to surmise you're trolling us. It actually works. I've seen no evidence that the Watch project began in the early 2000s - source?
Airpods have so much innovation it's not even funny.
Yes, cash in the bank buys you a lot of time but if sales slow, even a little, Apple will get overly punished in the markets and then we would see some action.
I'm really at a loss if you're suggesting apple doesn't push the envelope. Have you already forgotten about the shitstorm that ensued when they ditched the 3.5mm audio jack? You can also thank them for USBC which is a copy of Lightning, which itself allowed them to push the envelope of smaller components and smaller devices. The layered substrate sandwich in the displays of our devices is certainly mind-blowing.
Satisfaction has been good up now and loyalty in the US too. Not so in some other markets.
Huawei unravels and goes back to its core business. Apple unravels and where does it go? Back to Mac?
One possible reason for Huawei not currently pushing into the US may be certification of the modem they use, which, the last time I heard, was being processed by the relevant US authorities.
http://fortune.com/huawei-china-smartphone/
On the subject of modem approval:
"we spoke with HiSilicon to confirm that this is a brand new custom CDMA solution, rather than a licensed platform. The value of CDMA is mixed, although a required element with certain carriers in China and the US, such that Huawei can now offer devices with the Kirin 960 can compete. It should be pointed out that CDMA certification for the US via the FCC takes 18-24 months, and I was unable to confirm when the process was started, so we may have to wait another year for a US-focused CDMA devices."
Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10766/huawei-announces-hisilicon-kirin-960-a73-g71
After a first reading, it seems the biggest roadblock to Huawei's progress in the US is political, not commercial.
You are stating what is more than common knowledge but before firing off, please answer my question.
I will repeat what I said earlier:
"Some services are paid, others aren't but are monetised nonetheless"
Think about it.
The reality is even though the App Store rakes in more revenue than the Play Store, there is still money to be made. Your bank will provide an app for your phone for 'free' but you are still 'paying' for it. Every time a user carries out a Google search, Google is making money. Many Apps carry ads, some are paid apps, etc
It may shock you to hear, but people do spend money on Android Apps and in spite of the seemingly negative operating environment (fragmentation included), there are an enormous amount of Android Apps available.
Which brings me back to my initial question, why?
I await your reply.
Apple probably needs to add mouse or TrackPad support. Two model levels are need: 1) Entry/Education using PolyCarbonate body with 9.7 inch screen and A9 chip at $249
and 2) iOSBook Pro with i10 and either 9.7 or 12.9 screen size and mouse/pen support starting at $799/$899.
Could not find original source, but this is pretty close: https://9to5mac.com/2013/02/12/heres-all-of-the-public-information-on-apples-watchmaking-activity/
Patents back to 2009 allows for at least a few years of R&D.
Read my original post - and the post I was responding to.
My point is/was that, in my opinion, Apples innovation has not left people speechless in a number of years. It needs to do that again.
Again, innovation doesn't mean brand new products or tentpole features. The technology in Apple gear gets smaller and more capable, and that is the true innovation. The various substrate layers sandwiched into the display tech of new devices is incredible, and doesnt develop itself or fall off trees fully formed. Apple is pushing this stuff forward -- displays, touch, wearables... And this is why people line up for days to buy their stuff as early as possible.
Here is the subtle point you missed, if all Apple was selling was a more expensive phone, your view would be correct there would be no way Apple could maintain the higher price and all suppliers will be in the race to the bottom and only those who can remove all inefficiency out of their operations wins and it truly becomes about who make more widgets.
However, Apple is the only company who is selling an experience, they selling their entire eco-system and their value add. Plus with a premium product come Apple premium experience from the minute you walk in their stores to the point you open box to every day you use the product. No other company is doing this they are all selling on list of feature and price point. There are whole class of consumers who will always buy Apple due to the experience.
Freeper, you do realize the technology Samsung is relying on the magnetic card swipe if going away, especially if your CC already has the Chip on the card. Even today if you swipe the card and it has the chip the POS will reject it and ask you put the card into the slot, With Apple pay you do not have to do this. I have seen people use Samsung Pay, it not easier it take them 2 to 3 times as long to pay then it does when I use Apple pay. This is real world experience not marketing hype from Samsung.
The only things in commond with Apple pay and any other systems out there is the NFC protocol which was a standard out there which Google or Samsung did not come up with. NFC was done for exactly what Apple and others were using it for. The rest is completely different.
Finland was Nokia paradise in 'feature" phone land. Then phones went 'smart' and the top dog became a lame dog in record time.
Things theb went massively Apple and Samsung premium and it was a new 'smart' paradise.
This is Finland. Top notch education system. Top notch communications. A model in many senses. Users know what they are buying.
When unknown Huawei landed in Finland it took them just eighteen months to spread. Selling ten times as many phones as Apple.
They basically took over sales in The Netherlands and Portugal. They are dominant in Spain etc.
The 'ecosystem' did little to stem the tide. Apple has been brushed aside and 60% of Huawei sales are reportedly in the mid to high end.
The above example is Finland, not Equador (no offence meant). The people buying Huawei are taking well considered purchasing decisions and have reasonable incomes.
Something clearly isn't going to plan for Apple in some markets - even if they are currently sweeping up the lion's share of profits.
Its maintaining healthy gross margins isn't the only reason Apple realizes such a large share of smartphone industry profits though. Other companies, to varying degrees of course, likely have nice gross margins as well when it comes to the premium smartphones that they sell. Companies don't typically report gross margins for particular product categories, so we have deduce them to some extent (just as we do with Apple). But Samsung, e.g., has company-wide gross margins that are roughly equal to those of Apple. Huawei has gross margins which are better than Apple's, though I don't think the same can yet be said of its smartphone business. Again, they don't report gross margins by product category but we can figure from what they do report that smartphone margins (at least for Huawei) are lower than what Apple's likely are (and, for Huawei, substantially lower than its company-wide margins), but still real margins. For Huawei, its smartphone product mix has been improving - a larger portion of its sales are of mid-level and premium smartphones - so its overall smartphone margins are likely improving. It is getting a foothold in the premium and mid-level smartphone market. Huawei likely won't report its full year 2016 results for a few weeks. It will be interesting to see what kind of growth it had and how much its product mix improved, but for the first half of the year its growth continued to be impressive. Regardless, the important reality remains: Apple is dominant in the premium smartphone market and thus realizes a great deal of gross profit (and would even if its gross margins for premium smartphones were the same as others'). It generated considerably more revenue from iPhones last year than Samsung did from all of its mobile devices, even though Samsung sold considerably more smartphones.
But as I suggested, gross margins are only part of the picture when it comes to profitability - operating expenses are important as well. Perhaps the greater differentiator between Apple and some others (when it comes to profitability) is the impact of operating expenses. Those are expenses beyond the cost of goods sold which affects gross margins and gross profit. That is where much of Apple's (relative) profitability comes from. For one thing, Apple's large gross profits (due in part to the high volume of premium smartphones that it sells) exert a lot of leverage on its operating expenses as the latter don't rise dollar for dollar with the former. Apple also seems to be more efficient when it comes to certain operating expenses than some of its competitors are.
Samsung's total revenue for its FY 2016 was 81% of what Apple's was for its FY 2016 and its gross profit was 84% of Apple's (i.e. it had a bit better gross margin). But its operating expenses were nearly double those of Apple. (We're talking about company-wide numbers here; a similar dynamic would have played out on a product category level though the comparisons would obviously change some.) It spent more on R&D and far more on SG&A (selling, general and administrative) than Apple did even though it had less in total sales. That's where the profitability disparity comes from. Samsung's gross profit was $71 billion compared with Apple's $84 billion, but 64% of Samsung's gross profit was eaten up by R&D and SG&A while only 29% of Apples' was. Samsung spent 7% and 19% of its revenue on R&D and SG&A respectively. Apple spent 5% and 7%. If Apple's R&D and SG&A spending levels were the same as Samsung's, half its operating profit would dissapear. Apple as a company is more efficient. For a huge company Apple is remarkably efficient. That, combined of course with creating very desired products which people are willing to pay a lot of money for, is what drive's Apple's profitability.
As I suggested we don't have full year 2016 numbers for Huawei to compare to, but we can look at their 2015 numbers (and Apple's FY 2015 numbers). Most of Huawei's business is not mobile devices, but an increasing share of it is. Anyway, Huawei spent more on R&D in 2015 than Apple did, $8.6 billion to $8.1 billion, even though it had less than a quarter of Apple's total revenue, $57 billion to $234 billion (based on current exchange rates). Huawei spent 15% of its revenue on R&D and 16% of its revenue on SG&A, Apple spent 3% and 6%. So Huawei's 42% gross margin (again, for smartphones the gross margin would have been significantly lower, especially with a much worse product mix back then) turned into a 12% operating margin while Apple's 40% gross margin turned into a 30% operating margin.
TL;DR: Yes, Apple's gross margins matter when it comes to its profitability. For various reasons, including its more desirable product mix (e.g. it sells mostly premium smartphones), it enjoys high gross margins. But its profitability is also largely driven by its operational efficiency (even without taking into account the incremental costs of building its products, its production efficiency if you will). It spends less on R&D and much less on SG&A and thus retains a much larger portion of its gross profits as operating profits.