iPhone's share of US smartphone market rises to 28 percent

[AppleInsider]

Apple Inc. managed to garner approximately 28 percent of the red hot US smartphone market during the fourth calendar quarter of 2007, up more than 43 percent from the three-month period ending September.

According to a report issued Tuesday by market analysis firm Canalys, the iPhone's 28 percent share placed it second in the US market behind only RIM's with 41 percent share, and well ahead of Palm, whose 9 percent share placed it a distant third.

The boost, up from the 19.5 percent third quarter share announced by Apple chief executive Steve Jobs at last month's Macworld Expo, was also enough to put the Mac OS X-based handset ahead of all Windows Mobile device vendors combined, whose share was 21 percent in the quarter according to the Canalys' figures.

"When you consider that it launched part way through the year, with limited operator and country coverage, and essentially just one product, Apple has shown very clearly that it can make a difference and has sent a wakeup call to the market leaders," said senior analyst Pete Cunningham. "What it must demonstrate now is that it can build a sustainable business in the converged device space, expanding its coverage and product portfolio.

In Europe, where the iPhone officially launched part way through the quarter in only three countries, Apple took the fifth spot behind Nokia, RIM, HTC and Motorola, but ahead of several established smart phone providers such as Sony Ericsson, Samsung and Palm.

Meanwhile, the Cupertino-based company's combined shipments of 2.32 million iPhones during the fourth quarter were also good enough to place it third in the worldwide smartphone market, ahead of Motorola's 2.3 million unit shipments, but behind RIM's 4.0 million and Nokia's 18.8 million.

In addition to expanding its coverage and smartphone portfolio going forward, Apple also needs to ensure that the exclusive relationships that got it so far so quickly do not prove to be a limit on what it can achieve, according to Cunningham.



"Apple’s innovation in its mobile phone user interface has prompted a lot of design activity among competitors," he said. "Experience shows that a vendor with only one smart phone design, no matter how good that design is, will soon struggle. [...] This race is a marathon, but you pretty much have to sprint every lap."

Earlier on Tuesday, Apple expanded its iPhone offerings by introducing a model with 16GB of storage for $499, which joins the existing 8GB model at $399. The new model, however, is cosmetically and functionally equivalent to the 8GB model.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[echosonic]

Today 28%, Tomorrow, THE WORLD!!!1

MUHAHAHAHahahahahahahahahahahaha

[walshbj]

I'm laughing pretty hard at Ballmer.

[dukishdary]

remember all those statements their CEO released about how they weren't worried about the iphone. ballmer too. wow. i bet he cringes everytime he sees that video of himself up on youtube

[bluedalmatian]

Originally Posted by dukishdary

remember all those statements their CEO released about how they weren't worried about the iphone. ballmer too. wow. i bet he cringes everytime he sees that video of himself up on youtube

You think baller watches You Tube?? thats a google service!!!

[wirc]

The iPhone will fail just like the MacBook Air did...

[eAi]

Originally Posted by bluedalmatian

You think baller watches You Tube?? thats a google service!!!

Well, I'm sure he's seen it on Windows Live Video Tube or whatever they call it...

[OriginalMacRat]

Originally Posted by wirc

The iPhone will fail just like the MacBook Air did...

Heh.

Should be highly successful then.

[BjK]

"Apple’s innovation in its mobile phone user interface has prompted a lot of design activity among competitors," he said. "Experience shows that a vendor with only one smart phone design, no matter how good that design is, will soon struggle. [...] This race is a marathon, but you pretty much have to sprint every lap."

I call BS. IMHO, The iPhone demonstrated that having one solid design can be very successful. All these copycats are just poor imitations of a superior product.

And besides, Apple is used to sprinting. That can't be said of most other phone makers...

[melgross]

I agree that these carrier specific agreements, are, and will hold Apple back in the long run.

Those "missing" iPhones that have turned up all over the world are proof of that.

If Apple had allowed people to buy them anywhere, from anyone, they might very well have sold twice as many already.

The idea of getting monthly "kickbacks" from carriers may give them a higher profit, but will hold down their sales, and marketshare.

We are already seeing reluctance from some of the biggest operators in the far east to enter into agreements with Apple over this.

Apple will either have to drop some financial requirements, or lose those contracts.

[ifiredmyboss.com]

Carrier Schmarrier....
The unlocked phones are showing that carriers are mattering less and less.
The only problem is the loss of revenue from people not picking up the contracts yet.

The unlocked phones will aid in spreading the iPhone into new markets where Apple can come into even more pent up demand.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by melgross

I agree that these carrier specific agreements, are, and will hold Apple back in the long run.

Those "missing" iPhones that have turned up all over the world are proof of that.

If Apple had allowed people to buy them anywhere, from anyone, they might very well have sold twice as many already.

Yes, however, the $250 Apple makes on every install generates more net profit than if they sold twice as much 'opened".

Originally Posted by melgross

The idea of getting monthly "kickbacks" from carriers may give them a higher profit, but will hold down their sales, and marketshare.

"Kickback" is a term implying, "a payment made to someone who has facilitated a transaction or appointment, esp. illicitly." Apple's agreement with AT&T is signed and opened to those privileged to see. A "Commission of Contract" would be a better description.

As well, coming into the market as Apple did, i.e., a new kid on the block, was no guarantee for success. Creating a demand on a demand can be a lot more profitable in the long term than simply filling a demand created by the early adopters.

Originally Posted by melgross

We are already seeing reluctance from some of the biggest operators in the far east to enter into agreements with Apple over this.

Not sure to whom you are referring. As demonstrated quite recently, the so-called negotiations with China were in fact "so-called," and evidently, a figment of somebodies' imaginations.

Originally Posted by melgross

Apple will either have to drop some financial requirements, or lose those contracts.

For years we have been forced to pay using the air in which we breathe. Locked into long-term contracts, more often by government dictates, and seduced by offerings of 'free-goods' that aren't truly free or good.

If we examine the current state of affairs, we find that data plans in particular have dropped significantly in price since the advent of the iPhone. And for those that weren't around in '84, it was Jobs that introduced MacWrite priced at $125 with the expectations that softwares to come would be significantly lower than the $500+ ponies one had to shell out for a DOS counterpart. That, and considering Apple's continued policy to not only make things simpler to use but at a price, if any, simpler to accept.

As such, I am not worried that Apple may drop or lose some contracts because I am confident that any replacement will still be more beneficial to us. Perhaps it is wishful thinking. However, I don't like to pay more for using the air we breathe in, and I don't think the Jobs does either.

[melgross]

[QUOTE=Abster2core;1210909]Yes, however, the $250 Apple makes on every install generates more net profit than if the sold twice as much 'opened".9/quote]

It does. but that is also holding back sales. If Apple wants to continue the iPhone as a niche product, then fine. I don't like the idea though, and it also results in higher prices for the customer of the service, because they must make up for the loss by charging higher prices for the contract. so, in the end, it's the customer that is paying Apple. A hidden cost.

"Kickback" is a term implying, "a payment made to someone who has facilitated a transaction or appointment, esp. illicitly." Apple's agreement with AT&T is signed and opened to those privileged to see. A "Commission of Contract" would be a better description.

That's why I used quotes. Besides, in a way, it is. The idea that Apple, no doubt, had, was that this phone is going to be so popular, and will add so many people to your customer lists, that you owe us for that, and if we don't get it, then you don't get the phone. That's a kickback.

As well, coming into the market as Apple did, i.e., a new kid on the block, was no guarantee for success. Creating a demand on a demand can be a lot more profitable in the long term than simply filling a demand by the early adopters.

but, also, Apple has been so hot, and the hype so great, that it's not inconceivable that the carriers were concerned that they wouldn't get it.

Not sure to whom you are referring. As demonstrated quite recently, the so-called negotiations with China were in fact "so-called," and evidently, a figment of somebodies' imaginations.

Not true. Of course, Jobs played it down. But the head of the China company did state that they WERE negotiating, and also, that they would NOT pay a portion of their income to Apple.

For years we have been forced to pay in the air that we breathe. Locked into long-term contracts, more often by government dictates, and seduced by offerings of 'free-goods' that aren't truly free or good.

If we examine the current state of affairs, we find that data plans in particular have dropped significantly in price since the advent of the iPhone. And for those that weren't around in '84, it was Jobs that introduced MacWrite priced at $125 with the expectations that softwares to come would be significantly lower than the $500 ponies for a DOS counterpart. That, and considering Apple's continued policy to not only make things simpler to use but at a price, if any, simpler to accept.

As such, I am not worried that Apple may drop or loose some contracts because I am confident that any replacement will be more beneficial to us. Perhaps it is wishful thinking. However, I don't like to pay for more the air we breathe in, and I don't think the Jobs does either.

Well we'll see. But, so far, Apple has not shown any reason why we should think so. They are charging the phone companies after all. That's a fact.

If that counts as your "air", then you will pay for it, unless you can get an unlocked phone that isn't being overcharged for the ability, as we see in Europe.

I may not be back until tomorrow, so if you reply, that's why no answer.

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by wirc

The iPhone will fail just like the MacBook Air did...

Post of the day!

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by BjK

I
And besides, Apple is used to sprinting. That can't be said of most other phone makers...

Actually, the Sprints of the world should be appl-ing...

[TenoBell]

I agree that these carrier specific agreements, are, and will hold Apple back in the long run.
If Apple had allowed people to buy them anywhere, from anyone, they might very well have sold twice as many already.

This is true but this does not seem the point of Apple's strategy. From what we can tell Apple does not just want to throw a phone out there and hope for the best, Apple wants to have full control of the iPhone platform and its growth.

I agree at some point Apple needs to offer the phone to more carriers. And based on the iPhones acceptance will be able to do that from a stronger position.

We are already seeing reluctance from some of the biggest operators in the far east to enter into agreements with Apple over this.

This is just all bluster and show for negotiations.

[Cory Bauer]

Originally Posted by BjK

And besides, Apple is used to sprinting. That can't be said of most other phone makers...

Ain't that the truth. Smartphone makers have been getting it wrong for 16 years, and then Apple comes in and gets it right on their first try. I don't know if it's funny or sad.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by TenoBell

This is true but this does not seem the point of Apple's strategy. From what we can tell Apple does not just want to throw a phone out there and hope for the best, Apple wants to have full control of the iPhone platform and its growth.

I agree at some point Apple needs to offer the phone to more carriers. And based on the iPhones acceptance will be able to do that from a stronger position.



This is just all bluster and show for negotiations.

No to both. We now see that sales are not up to expectations anyway. you can't argue that point anymore. This doesn't help in any way.

Just because Apple has a plan, doesn't mean that it's a good plan.

You also can't say that this is bluster. They may very well feel as though the iPhone isn't such a big deal to them. This would be justified by the slow sales around Europe.

[TenoBell]

No to both. We now see that sales are not up to expectations anyway. you can't argue that point anymore. This doesn't help in any way.

The over all sales are fine. Its just that more phones than expected ended up in the grey market than signed to carrier contracts. European sales projections would have been met had all of the sold phones been signed to carrier contracts.

Just because Apple has a plan, doesn't mean that it's a good plan.

I've never given an opinion whether it was a good plan or a bad plan. I'm just saying this is their plan. Time will tell if it works or not.

You also can't say that this is bluster. They may very well feel as though the iPhone isn't such a big deal to them. This would be justified by the slow sales around Europe.

You can't really say it isn't bluster. The iPhone is already being sold in Asia. They do really want the iPhone but of course don't want the revenue sharing deal.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by TenoBell

The over all sales are fine. Its just that more phones than expected ended up in the grey market than signed to carrier contracts. European sales projections would have been met had all of the sold phones been signed to carrier contracts.

Teno, you really have to give it up. Overseas sales are NOT fine. None have met their targets. Ther have been enough news stories confirming that over the psst week or so for even you to understand.

i know you like your phone, but get real.

I've never given an opinion whether it was a good plan or a bad plan. I'm just saying this is their plan. Time will tell if it works or not.

I'll still say that it's a bad plan.

You can't really say it isn't bluster. The iPhone is already being sold in Asia. They do really want the iPhone but of course don't want the revenue sharing deal.

You cant say it is. The number of phones sold around the world, unlocked, seems to be nice, but it totally trivial when compared to what they would be if Apple was already there and selling phones.

You also don't know if what Jobs has said isn't bluster. You seen to be thinking that whatever he says is true and proper, and what anyone else says isn't.

[TenoBell]

Overseas sales are NOT fine.

There are reports that the phone is nearly in every country around the planet. Over seas sales are fine just in an unexpected way. If all 4 million phones stayed in the four countries with the four carriers they were intended we wouldn't be having this debate.

You cant say it is. The number of phones sold around the world, unlocked, seems to be nice, but it totally trivial when compared to what they would be if Apple was already there and selling phones.

iPhones on sale in China clearly show their is a demand for it. Of course Chinese carriers want to fill that demand. I'm saying they are downplaying how much they want it because they don't want the revenue sharing deal.

You also don't know if what Jobs has said isn't bluster. You seen to be thinking that whatever he says is true and proper, and what anyone else says isn't.

Yeah their is blustering from both sides it goes with negotiations.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by TenoBell

There are reports that the phone is nearly in every country around the planet. Over seas sales are fine just in an unexpected way. If all 4 million phones stayed in the four countries with the four carriers they were intended we wouldn't be having this debate.

Most of those phones around the planet seem to have come from sales here, in the USA. Which is why ATT has experienced about two million subscriptions, while Apple claimed many more sales here. Why don't you check facts instead of insisting on the same old incorrect thing?

iPhones on sale in China clearly show their is a demand for it. Of course Chinese carriers want to fill that demand. I'm saying they are downplaying how much they want it because they don't want the revenue sharing deal.

Right now, where phones are not available, there is a cache´ that won't last once the hones ARE available. The difference will be that the phones will be guaranteed by Apple, and whichever company takes them over. I feel sorry for people in these far flung places when their phones break down.

I understand that they want any product that will sell. But the evidence is that the phone won't sell quite as well as was thought. For companies with vast numbers of customers, this phone sells to just a fairly small percentage. Unless Apple can figure out ways to bring the price down so that more can get it, sales will plateau. By charging the carriers monthly, the plans are more expensive than they would otherwise be. That doesn't help either.

Some companies in some countries, esp China, are doggedly against revenue sharing. Apple must understand that.

I've a feeling that in order to sell into these places, Apple will have to bite the bullet, and accept no more than what will be a face saving amount to cement the deals.

[TenoBell]

Most of those phones around the planet seem to have come from sales here, in the USA. Which is why ATT has experienced about two million subscriptions, while Apple claimed many more sales here. Why don't you check facts instead of insisting on the same old incorrect thing?

Their aren't really any hard facts because we don't fully know how many grey market phones came from each country. Its logical that most would come from the US. If you are going to sell grey market phones the weak dollar will give you a better ROI than buying with the strong Euro or Pound.

But none of this disputes that overall iPhone sales are good. Many of the phones sold have not produced long term contracts for Apple's carriers.

The carriers must work within the market. They are forced to offer plans at prices that will convince people to not to unlock their phone to another carrier. Exampled by the change from O2.

I've a feeling that in order to sell into these places, Apple will have to bite the bullet, and accept no more than what will be a face saving amount to cement the deals.

When carriers give phones for free in exchange for long term contract, they have to pay the manufacturer something. The carrier is able to sell the iPhone at a premium price and charge a premium long term plan. Its simply getting the revenue sharing cost down to what they feel is worth the effort.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by TenoBell

When carriers give phones for free in exchange for long term contract, they have to pay the manufacturer something. The carrier is able to sell the iPhone at a premium price and charge a premium long term plan. Its simply getting the revenue sharing cost down to what they feel is worth the effort.

When Carriers pay manufacturers for phones given away with contracts, they are making a payment for the phone. Whe carriers are paying Apple, they are giving Apple money up front as a bonus when the contract is initiated, and then paying every month for the life of the contract.

The carriers pay the manufacturer the wholesale price of the phones, which is about 50% of the list, assuming the list isn't inflated in the first place, whic it could be.

But Apple is likely getting much more from the carriers than are other manufacturers, raising our prices overall higher than they would have been.

[TenoBell]

But Apple is likely getting much more from the carriers than are other manufacturers,

Speaking of facts, we don't know how much they are paying Apple.

raising our prices overall higher than they would have been.

My ATT bill for unlimited data is less than ATT charges its general unlimited data plans. Whatever ATT pays Apple they felt it was enough to charge me less for unlimited data than they charge everyone else.

[TenoBell]

Right now, where phones are not available, there is a cache´ that won't last once the hones ARE available. The difference will be that the phones will be guaranteed by Apple, and whichever company takes them over. I feel sorry for people in these far flung places when their phones break down.

There is also an opportunity here. Apple and the carrier can offer warranty coverage to those who sign a contract with the official carrier. Helping to consolidate unlocked iPhone users under that carrier.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by TenoBell

Speaking of facts, we don't know how much they are paying Apple.

Estimates are that it could be as much as 30% of the monthly bill.

My ATT bill for unlimited data is less than ATT charges its general unlimited data plans. Whatever ATT pays Apple they felt it was enough to charge me less for unlimited data than they charge everyone else.

Yes, they have special iPhone plans, which would be cheaper still, if not for Apple's cut.

[Hiro]

Originally Posted by melgross

Estimates are that it could be as much as 30% of the monthly bill. Yes, they have special iPhone plans, which would be cheaper still, if not for Apple's cut.

Well except for the little part where unless you have an iPhone to pay that cut to Apple you PAY MORE! I got 2 iPhones and added the data plans compared to our old no-data "free POS Samsungs" and our monthly mobile bill has gone down about $15/month!

Arguing the cell carriers are gouging customers will only get agreements, arguing the iPhone is making it worse when it lowers the gouge just doesn't seem to add up.

[TenoBell]

Estimates are that it could be as much as 30% of the monthly bill.

Estimates are estimates, doesn't make them true.

Yes, they have special iPhone plans, which would be cheaper still, if not for Apple's cut.

Two questions.

Why did ATT cut the price for the iPhone in the first place?

Why would ATT cut the price further if they weren't sharing revenue with Apple?

[bavlondon2]

This story is such a load of tosh it makes me want to laugh and cry. 28% share yipeeeee.


lol Nokia who have the biggets share worldwide for smartphones dont even have a presense there so who else would take the share? WM devices suck so it wouldnt be them now would it.

This is like saying in a town only either Nike or Nikeeyyyy are sold, nothing else. Nike hold a 90% share hahahaha

Rubbish. Why dont you get the stats for every country the iphone is out in.

Iphone vs Symbian S60 v Symbian UIQ vs WM. Then you would see how big Apples share really is haha. Ill save you guessing, it would come dead last.

[TenoBell]

This story is such a load of tosh it makes me want to laugh and cry. 28% share yipeeeee.

What makes this so important is that the iPhone has only been out for 8 months. Is sold at a premium price point with a premium tariff. Versus phones that have been available for years that are given free with cheaper tariff.

Nokia dominates so much that of course the iPhone will not have made as big a dent in their marketshare in such a short time. With so many Nokia phones being given away free with cheaper tariff.

But give it time the landscape will change.

[bavlondon2]

This will only change if

1) Apple release newer phones quicker

and 2) If they stop charging a premium price. Even if they did release a range of phones they would still be expensive for a few years so it wouldnt matter anyway. Its only not that you can get 4gb flash memory for so cheap, before how much was it? Alot!

This isnt the mp3 market like we saw with the Ipod. People know what they want in the phone market and Apple not putting enough feaures is them failing at the first hurdle. They will never get a decent share all round if they continue to leave out specs which they deem not important enough to add, simple as that really.

[Hiro]

Originally Posted by bavlondon2

This will only change if

1) Apple release newer phones quicker

and 2) If they stop charging a premium price. Even if they did release a range of phones they would still be expensive for a few years so it wouldnt matter anyway. Its only not that you can get 4gb flash memory for so cheap, before how much was it? Alot!

This isnt the mp3 market like we saw with the Ipod. People know what they want in the phone market and Apple not putting enough feaures is them failing at the first hurdle. They will never get a decent share all round if they continue to leave out specs which they deem not important enough to add, simple as that really.

It's not supposed to be like the iPod market. Apple has targeted a measly 1% of the total phone market as a threshold for wild success selling their high end phone. Why anyone is crying that the sky is falling because Apple isn't getting iPod-like 70%+ market share is only a case of not paying attention.

Do you realize the long term goal of that is 10 million phones a year? and with a very conservative 25% gross margin just on the sale of the phone that translates into a billion a year in pure profit? Then add in ANY side agreements and Apple is just freaking printing money!!

The iPhone is officially available in less that 1/3 of the world cell markets and still on track for the rollout goal of ten million phones by the end of '08. Even with all the 3G and MMS wining. Those are some pretty profound trends all-in-all.

[Kephisto]

Hiro, TenoBell, and dfiler, I agree with you. Remember before June 2007 just about everyone that now argues the point of the iPhone’s potential success more or less said (back then, as did many professionals) that Apple was stupid even for trying to enter the cellular market. Most of the same people disregard how truly successful the iPhone already is don’t know (or don’t seem to care) that in the United States most businesses fail within the first few years and most products take years to be truly successful. If you think selling a million of anything is easy, go ahead, feel free to try it. For starters, try convincing just five people to buy the same cell phone that you use now. Ok, can you convince three? Ok, maybe two? I’ll give you six months. Oh, that’s not the point?

We’re just having fun talking about the topic, ladies and gentleman, but for goodness sake, anyone that honestly says the iPhone isn’t successful (worldwide or not) is just as meaningless as telling me Spider-Man 3 was a bomb because it only made $357 million and it could have made $400 million if they marketed it to native tribes in the Amazon jungle. Are you joking?!

Once a movie or product makes a profit in the United States anything it makes overseas is extra. Do those of you overseas seriously think the first overseas McDonald's or Wendy's or Disney was an instant success? It took time. How many fries or burgers or visits did these three ventures get overseas in the first year? Did it, or did it not, get almost double the next year? That's starting a new business in a new market / area / country! Why don't some of you get that?

Each and every iPhone is minted margin profit, for both Apple and AT&T, so the only thing that matters is if nobody in a particular country bought iPhones. So far, many do. “Only” 90,000 or so? Please – it’s the first version and has been out less than eight months. Then again, maybe I get it, some of you call it a failure just because you haven't bought it yet or, just as likely, you just don't want it anyways. Is that it?

Were I in a business relationship with some of you that business would be doomed to failure. Any team that estimated sales of a new product or service to 20,000 the first year and we entered that new market to gain half that estimate, would that be a waste, a loss, a failure? Oh, we marketed in three demographics and it took off in one and has a very slow start in the other two, and some of you want to cry foul, the game's over, let's quit, market share means nothing?

Wow, I’m really glad I don’t work with some of you. Under some misguided (not being mean) business attitudes here, some of you would have put Microsoft, Apple, and even Ford, out of business in the first year alone. I can see it now, “I’m sorry, sir, we only sold about two million of those new Windows, iPods, Model T cars, in the United States, but sadly there’s just no demand for it in the small countries Bugafufu, Wannakana, Mystroka, and Yukyuk, so we stopped making it. Don't try to argue, sir, it's less than 90,000 of them sold in those other countries and we're tired of competiting with what's already been sold there. Let’s go. We’re a failure.”

For the record, you have to sell your first unit before you can sell a thousand, and sell that thousand before your first million, and your first million before eight. Steve said his target for Apple was selling eight million iPhones by the end of 2008. He’s already sold over three million in the first six months. He’s about halfway there. He never said he really cared where exactly all eight million were sold to. As a very successful businessman, I’m sure he’s proud that the iPhone is still selling very strong. The iPhone is already an amazing success and it will continue to be even if nobody else buys it. Four million people buying and using anything is a lot of customers and that's how many have it right now.

Let's see what happens when the 3G iPhone with 16 (or more) GB comes out this year in the United States, along with supported third party software using AT&T's expanded 3G network. Not to mention something I already know, a particular perk that AT&T is negotiating on to really make their network and the iPhone stand out.

If you really think the iPhone is failing in Europe, that's fine. But then, what is the #1 cell phone in Europe? Why aren't you on that cell phone company's forum giving suggestions for how to improve it rather than being here?

Just curious.

[bavlondon2]

Was that addressed to me Kephisto?

I already have an N95 8gb and should get an iphone soon too. I always have 2 high end phones.

[Kephisto]

Originally Posted by bavlondon2

Was that addressed to me Kephisto?

I already have an N95 8gb and should get an iphone soon too. I always have 2 high end phones.

It was addressed to the topic in general, bavlondon2, not exclusively to you. If what you've posted applies to what I've said, then you're included, not singled out. I hope this clarifies my position on the subject.

[bavlondon2]

Do you think if this phone was out in the US would the iphone have such a big share? I doubt it.

[sapporobaby]

Originally Posted by bavlondon2

Do you think if this phone was out in the US would the iphone have such a big share? I doubt it.

http://europe.nokia.com/A4674003

Hmm.......

[TenoBell]

Do you think if this phone was out in the US would the iphone have such a big share? I doubt it.

You guys keep pointing out phones with tons of features as though the phone is just inherently usable and people will automatically be satisfied with all of the features.

The N95 has sold on ATT so far it hasn't been a big hit. Nokia scored pretty low in a recent satisfactory survey.

[bavlondon2]

I stopped reading when I saw Sanyo 37% lol

The US mobile market it such a joke its not even funny.