Apple leads international smartphone market growth

[AppleInsider]

Sales of iPhones increased more than sixfold during the second quarter of 2009, helping Apple maintain its ranking as the third largest smartphone maker worldwide, according to a new report.

In an international review of mobile phone and smartphone sales, Gartner research director Carolina Milanesi reports that Apple sold more than 5.4 million iPhones in the second quarter of 2009. That number is well up from the 892,000 sold during that period in 2008, and represents the largest expansion of any smartphone maker. That growth brought the handset maker from a 2.8 percent market share to a 13.3 percent share of second-quarter sales in 2009.

In all, 40.9 million smartphones were sold during the period, representing 27 percent growth from 2008. Nokia was the worldwide leader, moving 18.4 million smartphones during the period, up from 15.2 million a year prior. Even with that increase, though, Nokia's market share dropped from 47.4 percent to 45 percent, demonstrating that the smartphone market is becoming even more crowded and competitive.

Second globally was Research in Motion, which captured 18.7 percent of the market, selling 7.6 million phones. In fourth was HTC with 6 percent share, and Fujitsu was in fifth with 3 percent.

Apple initially moved into third place globally in the third quarter of 2008, as the iPhone has continued its expansion internationally. The impact of the recently launched iPhone 3GS will not be seen until the second half of 2009, the Gartner analysis said.

"Apple's expansion into a larger number of countries in the past year has produced a clear effect on sales volumes, as have the recent price adjustments on the 8GB 3G iPhone," the report states.

In terms of operating systems, Symbian controlled the lion's share of the market with 51 percent, down from 57 percent a year before. Google's Android platform took just under 2 percent of the market.



Even with the growing popularity of smartphones, sales of overall phones were dragged down 6 percent for the quarter, to 286.1 million.

"Despite the challenging market, some devices sold well as consumers who would usually have purchased standard midrange devices either cut back to less expensive handsets or moved up the range to get more features for their money," Milanesi said. "Touchscreen and QWERTY devices remained a major driver for replacement sales and benefited manufacturers with strong, touch-focused mid-tier devices."

In terms of global mobile phone sales, Nokia wass again the leader, with 36.8 percent of the market, followed by Samsung, LG, Motorla and Sony Ericsson.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[anantksundaram]

Huh? Where are the vaunted LGs and Samsungs (in the smartphone market), which have supposedly sold in the gazillions

[ZeroKelvin]

So when can we expect Steve Balmer's response to this report that the iPhone is still a "fad" and doesn't represent the "true" smartphone market ?

[chronster]

Sixfold is impressive. Other companies are really gonna need to step it up now lol

Originally Posted by ZeroKelvin

So when can we expect Steve Balmer's response to this report that the iPhone is still a "fad" and doesn't represent the "true" smartphone market ?

HOPEFULLY right after he gets fired.

[Quadra 610]

Ballmer should be axed. Seriously, this blockhead is an embarrassment. No vision, no understanding of tech, and completely out of touch with the pulse of the market.

[Quadra 610]

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

Huh? Where are the vaunted LGs and Samsungs (in the smartphone market), which have supposedly sold in the gazillions

Volume without substance. That's all it is. Not very profitable in the long run, and a great recipe for falling behind.

[Roos24]

This again is proof of Apple's leadership. They developed a product that they would like to use themselves (quote from SJ) and not something that they hoped other users would like. Apple understood that the power of a smart phone primarily comes from the software, with the hardware only secondary. Even today, some wannabe smartphone makers still do not get that.

I hope that Apple will be able to keep a clear view of how they get where they want to be, and not let their vision be troubled by sales figures or try to be the number one in sales. If they just keep making something that they believe in, the sales figures will follow.

Nonetheless, with this pace RIM will soon be the no. 3, for all that's worth.

Jan

[MacTripper]

What we need is less expensive iPhone plans, nearly $100 a month for two years is insane!

I only pay $10-$15 a month for voice, would pay double that for data included no sweat and a flat rate for the device up front so Apple gets theirs.

Take a look a this article and you'll see that carrier/hardware maker "deals" are killing more adoption of the iPhone.

http://www.oecd.org/document/20/0,33..._1_1_1,00.html


And yes the FCC needs to step in and stop this practice, or at least allow people to have the cash to buy their iPhone upfront and pay a much lower monthly rates and allow carriers to compete.

Although I could easily buy several iPhones, I feel getting value for money and championing value for others so they can afford one is important.

People who have money don't like to be gouged either, it's a insult.

[elroth]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

In all, 40.9 smartphones were sold during the period

I bought the .9 smartphone - every once in a while it just stares blankly, stutters for a few seconds, then gets back on track. It's mostly smart.

[MacShack]

Originally Posted by MacTripper

What we need is less expensive iPhone plans, nearly $100 a month for two years is insane!

I only pay $10-$15 a month for voice, would pay double that for data included no sweat and a flat rate for the device up front so Apple gets theirs.

Take a look a this article and you'll see that carrier/hardware maker "deals" are killing more adoption of the iPhone.

http://www.oecd.org/document/20/0,33..._1_1_1,00.html


And yes the FCC needs to step in and stop this practice, or at least allow people to have the cash to buy their iPhone upfront and pay a much lower monthly rates and allow carriers to compete.

Although I could easily buy several iPhones, I feel getting value for money and championing value for others so they can afford one is important.

People who have money don't like to be gouged either, it's a insult.

Well I recently read in the news that the US, Spain and a couple of other countries were the most expensive countries for mobile phone contracts. Finland and the Netherlands, however, were the cheapest. I just think that geographically your mobile phone providers need to cover a larger area per head. Also the terrain in the US is a lot harder to cover. And therefore a lot harder to set up, maintain and upgrade. Unless a new technology is used to handle the signal, the US and other countries alike are going to be far more expensive. The Netherlands on the other handis flat and small. Making it much easier to set up, maintain and upgrade. Having more coverage per head, a lot more people share the same connection. So either move to Finland or the Netherlands or hope that a new technology will solve all the afore mentioned problems.

[aaarrrgggh]

The six-fold growth is based on effectively zero supply in CYQ2, right? The numbers are impressive, but I still have trouble understanding what exactly people see in Nokia's smart phone offerings to get that level of sales. I know the US-centric view isn't the best way to look at it, but I see far more HTC smartphones than Nokia. In Europe I saw more Samsung, and in Asia it was HTC, but that is a much more limited sampling.

It will be interesting to see how things change with Palm in the mix, and if we will ever see rate plans drop in price in the US.

[emulator]

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

Ballmer should be axed. Seriously, this blockhead is an embarrassment. No vision, no understanding of tech, and completely out of touch with the pulse of the market.

indeed. he'd be a very good used car salesman though!

[aaarrrgggh]

Originally Posted by MacShack

Well I recently read in the news that the US, Spain and a couple of other countries were the most expensive countries for mobile phone contracts. Finland and the Netherlands, however, were the cheapest. I just think that geographically your mobile phone providers need to cover a larger area per head. Also the terrain in the US is a lot harder to cover. And therefore a lot harder to set up, maintain and upgrade. Unless a new technology is used to handle the signal, the US and other countries alike are going to be far more expensive. The Netherlands on the other handis flat and small. Making it much easier to set up, maintain and upgrade. Having more coverage per head, a lot more people share the same connection. So either move to Finland or the Netherlands or hope that a new technology will solve all the afore mentioned problems.

I used to subscribe to that thesis, but... coverage in metro areas is still awful, and the phone companies really aren't trying to make things dramatically better. It seems like the technology of expensive base stations is kind of a losing proposition in metro areas, and the technology for coverage in rural areas doesn't really cover a large enough range.

Every time I see an old Ricochet Modem strapped to a street light I think about how much nicer that architecture is than the cellular networks (with modern technology and cheaper access to T1 uplinks).

Pricing in the US seems to be based on lock-in, and the stigma of pre-paid plans here.

[Dr Millmoss]

Originally Posted by MacTripper

What we need is less expensive iPhone plans, nearly $100 a month for two years is insane!

Check my work on this, but I believe the least expensive plan is $79/month, which is competitive with other phones in this class. That being said, still too expensive for me. Not that I can't afford it, I simply don't use a mobile phone enough to justify the freight. Get me a more limited minute and data plan for $50/month and I'm on board. Keeping this on topic, I think the iPhone is breaking down the artificial "smart phone" vs. "dumb phone" barrier. They could smash that barrier if they tailored plans to fit the needs of people who would like to own a good phone, but don't live on their mobiles.

[Dr Millmoss]

Originally Posted by emulator

indeed. he'd be a very good used car salesman though!

Which reminds me of...



I will leave the requisite alterations to the Photoshop jocks.

[RichL]

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

Huh? Where are the vaunted LGs and Samsungs (in the smartphone market), which have supposedly sold in the gazillions

They aren't smartphones so aren't included in the figures.

The above article gets the major reason why iPhone sales increased by such a large figure wrong. The real and very obvious reason is that the 2G iPhone was withdrawn from sale months before the 3G was released. However, I agree that international sales are very important for future growth.

Making a concerted push into China, India, Russia and Brazil is far more important than releasing a CDMA iPhone for Verizon.

On a different topic, I think all 5.4 million iPhones were sold in London. It seems like everyone has one these days!

[Dr Millmoss]

Originally Posted by RichL

However, I agree that intentional sales are very important for future growth.

Right, you just can't count on those unintentional sales!

Sorry, but that has to be my favorite typo for the week.

[RichL]

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Right, you just can't count on those unintentional sales!

Sorry, but that has to be my favorite typo for the week.

Haha. Corrected!

[Quadra 610]

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Right, you just can't count on those unintentional sales!

Sorry, but that has to be my favorite typo for the week.

It is a fun typo, isn't it?

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by RichL

They aren't smartphones so aren't included in the figures.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.....

[TenoBell]

Originally Posted by MacTripper

What we need is less expensive iPhone plans, nearly $100 a month for two years is insane!

That's only your opinion. You also have to look at the billions per year that mobile phone carriers spend on their networks, this is not a cheap business.

And yes the FCC needs to step in and stop this practice, or at least allow people to have the cash to buy their iPhone upfront and pay a much lower monthly rates and allow carriers to compete.

The FCC cannot stop this practice. The iPhone is only one of hundreds of phones. Simply because its the most desired phone does not mean the FCC gets to dictate how it is sold, that is against the free market. Other phone manufacturers have to develop better phones and compete.

[Dr Millmoss]

Originally Posted by RichL

Haha. Corrected!

Funny how the brain works sometimes.

[TenoBell]

I can agree that the over lap between smartphones and dumbphones is growing.

At the same time there is a barrier between the two, all phones are not created equal. Recently I was at a party where we played a trivia game. There were very difficult trivia questions and we were allowed to use whatever resources we had at hand to answer the questions.

I had my iPhone and began using it to find answers. Everyone else also had phones of various types, on various carriers. But I was always able to find the answers faster than anyone else. It got to a point of such ridiculousness, I had such an overwhelming advantage that they banned the use of the iPhone.

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

I think the iPhone is breaking down the artificial "smart phone" vs. "dumb phone" barrier. They could smash that barrier if they tailored plans to fit the needs of people who would like to own a good phone, but don't live on their mobiles.

[Constable Odo]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Micros....html?x=0&.v=3

Nokia is joining up with Microsoft to go after, supposedly RIM (though I suspect it's a way to also slow Apple's iPhone), to put Microsoft Office on Nokia smartphones. Both of these companies have major market share in their respective businesses.

Why shouldn't some government agency look into this deal for some sort of collusion or anti-competitive practices that I hear Apple is getting blamed for with only a tiny market share? Let's see how many people start to cry foul. Microsoft should be making Office for all the major smartphone companies. That would stand to make MS the most money.

It's amazing that no office suite company can break Microsoft Office's grip in businesses. I used MS Office on my Macs for years, but I really should try something else. I've just gotten used to MS Office and I'm too lazy to change.

[OC4Theo]

Apple share of the smartphone will double by this time next year. When you consider the fact that Apple is not yet in China, that alone is a big catalyst. And with iPhone prices getting cheaper and equipment getting better, only way for Apple is up. Nokia stands to lose the most. RIM will hang on with the Blackberry for a while, but as time goes on, iPhone will dominate the market.

50% in the next 2 years is not impossible for the iPhone.

Buy your shares in Apple, it won't get cheaper than it is now

[Smiles77]

Sony shows quick-charge batteries with 4x capacity
Sony on Wednesday announced it has released new olivine-type lithium iron batteries that have four times the capacity of conventional batteries from competitors. What's more, Sony claims the batteries can be charged to within 99 percent of their capacity in just 30 minutes. The batteries sport a power density of 1,800W/kg and a life span of 2,000 charge/discharge cycles.
The batteries, while slightly longer than AA batteries and thus limiting their use, will initially be the standard equipment for new power tools due to their quick-charging characteristics. They will then expand to power more mobile electronics devices.



This tech could be used in iPhones and Macs, maybe? That could be some sweet competition to Apple's new batteries.

[samab]

Originally Posted by MacTripper

What we need is less expensive iPhone plans, nearly $100 a month for two years is insane!

I only pay $10-$15 a month for voice, would pay double that for data included no sweat and a flat rate for the device up front so Apple gets theirs.

Take a look a this article and you'll see that carrier/hardware maker "deals" are killing more adoption of the iPhone.

http://www.oecd.org/document/20/0,33..._1_1_1,00.html


And yes the FCC needs to step in and stop this practice, or at least allow people to have the cash to buy their iPhone upfront and pay a much lower monthly rates and allow carriers to compete.

Although I could easily buy several iPhones, I feel getting value for money and championing value for others so they can afford one is important.

People who have money don't like to be gouged either, it's a insult.

You do realize that the OECD study was flawed and was stacked against US and Canada.

Their "medium" usage is 780 minutes PER YEAR (65 minutes a month). Their "high" usage is 1680 minutes PER YEAR (140 minutes a month).

They might as well classified the Smart Car as the full size family sedan.

[quinney]

Originally Posted by Smiles77

Sony shows quick-charge batteries with 4x capacity
Sony on Wednesday announced it has released new olivine-type lithium iron batteries that have four times the capacity of conventional batteries from competitors. What's more, Sony claims the batteries can be charged to within 99 percent of their capacity in just 30 minutes. The batteries sport a power density of 1,800W/kg and a life span of 2,000 charge/discharge cycles.

They also make a 4X larger explosion.

[RichL]

Originally Posted by OC4Theo

Apple share of the smartphone will double by this time next year. When you consider the fact that Apple is not yet in China, that alone is a big catalyst. And with iPhone prices getting cheaper and equipment getting better, only way for Apple is up. Nokia stands to lose the most. RIM will hang on with the Blackberry for a while, but as time goes on, iPhone will dominate the market.

50% in the next 2 years is not impossible for the iPhone.

Apple will never take 50% of the smartphone market simply because Android and Symbian will start turning up on lower and lower priced hardware. With a $0 license fee, they'll redefine what we call a smartphone.

[SGSStateStudent]

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

Ballmer should be axed. Seriously, this blockhead is an embarrassment. No vision, no understanding of tech, and completely out of touch with the pulse of the market.

Just be exiled from Microsoft. Apple would want him as a janitor though..

[SGSStateStudent]

Originally Posted by OC4Theo

snip! .. Buy your shares in Apple, it won't get cheaper than it is now

Yeah! Apple shares will cost $2000 by 2015!

[SGSStateStudent]

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

Which reminds me of...



I will leave the requisite alterations to the Photoshop jocks.

maybe ... never judge a man by his looks!

[AjitMD]

Originally Posted by RichL

Apple will never take 50% of the smartphone market simply because Android and Symbian will start turning up on lower and lower priced hardware. With a $0 license fee, they'll redefine what we call a smartphone.

The iPhone would have taken 50% of the smart phone market already if Apple had chosen to market the device across all carriers and radio technologies. In the US, it would mean making iPhones with CDMA/EVDO and marketing via VZ, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc. Any subsidies would have been much lower than what ATT is paying for exclusivity. It would mean loss of control of the phones, App store and even iTunes. Gross margins would have been lower for Apple as has been the case with RIMM.

Apple has become the 800 pound gorilla in the game. I would suggest reading the "The Gorilla Game" book by Jeffrey More. The Apple model is has some variations. It iPhone has an open proprietary architecture with hi certain switching costs. The open architecture allows the developers to create added value via the apps and content with an entire ecosystem. They are a huge value added chain that increases the value to the iPhone.

Any new competitor like the Google phone, Pre, new Zune phone will have to fight the entire value chain. The Nokia Symbiam models, Windows mobile, Blackberry phones are based on limited by outdated architecture is addition to the limitations mentioned earlier. Sure, they can strap on a touch screen, but that is not the real thing. The big risk going forward will be the socialist regulators in Brussels/EU or even in US and possible fines once Apple reaches a 50% market share with the iPhone.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by MacTripper

What we need is less expensive iPhone plans, nearly $100 a month for two years is insane!

I only pay $10-$15 a month for voice, would pay double that for data included no sweat and a flat rate for the device up front so Apple gets theirs.

Take a look a this article and you'll see that carrier/hardware maker "deals" are killing more adoption of the iPhone.

http://www.oecd.org/document/20/0,33..._1_1_1,00.html


And yes the FCC needs to step in and stop this practice, or at least allow people to have the cash to buy their iPhone upfront and pay a much lower monthly rates and allow carriers to compete.

Although I could easily buy several iPhones, I feel getting value for money and championing value for others so they can afford one is important.

People who have money don't like to be gouged either, it's a insult.

Just got the whole report. Interesting how little or no difference between individual carrier prices in each country. No difference between AT&T, Verizon, etc., when comparing like services.

Have noticed that some of the pricing doesn't look right, especially knowing exactly how much we pay.

Hard to compare between countries. Certainly the study doesn't take into account geographic factors. Wouldn't one think that a country that could fit into the State of Maine would have lower infrastructure costs than countries the size of Canada and the United States?

Besides that, many or maybe even most of the lower priced areas were initially 'government' services (and some still are majority owned by the government) and thus their infrastructure was built primarily on taxpayers dollars and not by free enterprise and actual users.

Nice when you can attach yourself 'freely' to the laurels of others.

[Dr Millmoss]

Originally Posted by SGSStateStudent

maybe ... never judge a man by his looks!

True, but it worked well in this case. The use of the phrase reminded me of how it was once used so famously. Which makes me... old!

[samab]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

Just got the whole report. Interesting how little or no difference between individual carrier prices in each country. No difference between AT&T, Verizon, etc., when comparing like services.

Have noticed that some of the pricing doesn't look right, especially knowing exactly how much we pay.

Hard to compare between countries. Certainly the study doesn't take into account geographic factors. Wouldn't one think that a country that could fit into the State of Maine would have lower infrastructure costs than countries the size of Canada and the United States?

Besides that, many or maybe even most of the lower priced areas were initially 'government' services (and some still are majority owned by the government) and thus their infrastructure was built primarily on taxpayers dollars and not by free enterprise and actual users.

Nice when you can attach yourself 'freely' to the laurels of others.

I just read the whole report --- it showed NONE of the stuff that you mentioned (i.e. differences between AT&T Wireless and Verizon Wireless pricing). The only individualized pricing comparision is on the broadband service. Also the report itself acknowledged that the average American talk 9600 minutes a year (800 minutes a month) --- even accounting that it's 50% incoming and 50% outgoing, the average American still talk about 3 times more than the OCED "high" usage and 6 times more than their "medium" usage.

http://browse.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/...t/9309031E.PDF

You just got caught claiming that you got the report when you actually didn't.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by samab

I just read the whole report --- it showed NONE of the stuff that you mentioned (i.e. differences between AT&T Wireless and Verizon Wireless pricing). The only individualized pricing comparision is on the broadband service. Also the report itself acknowledged that the average American talk 9600 minutes a year (800 minutes a month) --- even accounting that it's 50% incoming and 50% outgoing, the average American still talk about 3 times more than the OCED "high" usage and 6 times more than their "medium" usage.

http://browse.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/...t/9309031E.PDF

You just got caught claiming that you got the report when you actually didn't.

My error. I got a number of reports early this morning from the OECD and quickly reviewed and referenced the wrong one.

Here is the correction, publication dated June 30, 2009

Working Party on CommunicatIon Infrastructures and Service Policy

MOBILE BROADBAND: PRICING AND SERVICES

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/26/19/43280727.pdf

Thank you for the headsup.

[addabox]

Originally Posted by RichL

Apple will never take 50% of the smartphone market simply because Android and Symbian will start turning up on lower and lower priced hardware. With a $0 license fee, they'll redefine what we call a smartphone.

As Dr. Millmoss has pointed out, Apple has already redefined what we call a smart phone, by making a device that can appeal to the "just a phone" crowd. It's easy to forget that prior to the iPhone the smart phone market was pretty much limited to road warriors and geeks, for whom mastering esoteric devices is a badge of honor.

Even if Android and Symbian become available on "free" phones, their mass market appeal will still be limited by the cost of data plans. Apple already sells a $99 iPhone; compared to the cost of two years of service the difference between that and free is negligible.

If someone can make a deal with a broad range of global carriers to offer their particular smartphone with a radically cheaper service plan, then that would have a big impact on the market. However, if one carrier started offering something like that and it produced a big shift in subscribers, inevitably other carriers would follow suit, so it would be a short lived advantage.

The real product differentiators in the subsidized phone/expensive data plan phone market are OS, UI, SDK and ecosystem. In this Apple has a clear advantage, simply giving away your smartphones still linked to expensive data plans or hampered by a shitty UI isn't going to make much of a difference.

[samab]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

My error. I got a number of reports early this morning from the OECD and quickly reviewed and referenced the wrong one.

Here is the correction, publication dated June 30, 2009

Working Party on CommunicatIon Infrastructures and Service Policy

MOBILE BROADBAND: PRICING AND SERVICES

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/26/19/43280727.pdf

Thank you for the headsup.

There are numerous explanations for the "narrow" and "wide" range of prices.

(1) Very competitive market --- like the US where Verizon and AT&T each have only 30% of the market --- narrow range
(2) Very uncompetitve market --- in a lot of other countries where there are only 3 carriers, or where the former monopoly owns 45-50% of the market --- narrow range
(3) wide range in countries like UK and Australia where Li Ka Shing wants to create trouble so that existing carriers would want to buy him out. Li Ka Shing has been failing to cash out his investment in Hutchison 3 worldwide --- can't sell them, can't IPO them --- so he is starting price wars all over the place in order to force somebody to buy him out.

[SGSStateStudent]

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

True, but it worked well in this case. The use of the phrase reminded me of how it was once used so famously. Which makes me... old!

Oh well. We'll all grow old REAL soon then..