or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Report: iPhone grabs 32% of global handset profits in 2009
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Report: iPhone grabs 32% of global handset profits in 2009 - Page 3

post #81 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by SGSStateStudent View Post

Oh. The N97 is a good $100 cheaper than the 16GB 3GS in the place where I live. With Nokia Comes With Music, N97 is still $20 cheaper.

And about 8x slower, 2x bigger/thicker/uglier, and with that POS OS from the 1990s. Man, I hate Nokia phones. Was more than happy to ditch S60 when the iPhone 3G came out, and now my 3GS whips everything.

N97 = lol.
post #82 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker00 View Post

And about 8x slower, 2x bigger/thicker/uglier, and with that POS OS from the 1990s. Man, I hate Nokia phones. Was more than happy to ditch S60 when the iPhone 3G came out, and now my 3GS whips everything.

N97 = lol.

^This.
post #83 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

If it didn't have exclusivity and couldn't guarantee that consumers would stick with them, I doubt they would be subsidizing as much as they are.

I really don't understand the logic of this statement. If there is more competition for gaining and retaining subscribers, why would the amount of the subsidy decrease? If they can, "guarantee that consumers [will] stick with them," why would they need a larger subsidy?
post #84 of 183
Apple will get what the market will bare and apparently it will bare a lot. Simple economics.
post #85 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple earned just over $5 billion in the first half of the year, making it the fifth biggest player in terms of revenue, behind Nokia, Samsung, RIM, and LG. Apple lead the world in actually making money however, with just over $2 billion in operating profits.

And this is point that people repeatedly miss.

The purpose of a business is to make as much profit as they can. Market share is irrelevant as these figures (albeit, estimates) attest.

Also, the same reason Apple isn't that fussed about their desktop market share.
post #86 of 183
Worrying about Apple's margins are a complete red herring. And ascribing moral attributes to same-- imagining that a given gross margin is "obscene" or is an indication of "greed" is nonsensical.

"Corporate greed" is a tautology-- it's a given that corporations will endeavor to increase profits. There are, of course, different ways of going about that, depending on the market and the business model.

You can endeavor to maximize market share and unit sales by relentless price cutting, hoping that razor thin margins on a great many widgets will provide overall profits, ala Dell, or you can go the Apple route and concentrate on the higher end, higher profit segment.

The idea that one is more moral than the other is silly. Does anyone actually think that Nokia, say, gives away tens of millions of "just a phone" handsets out of altruism? Because they want everyone to have access to their great phones, and are willing to make less money to see that happen?

Of course not. Nokia wants as much market share as possible, because that provides inherent competitive advantages. Apple also wants as much market share as possible, within the context of the phones they want to make and their business model.

Talking about "obscene and greedy" pricing obliges one to defend lower prices as "moral and altruistic" (because obscene and greedy have no meaning outside of prevailing custom), which simply makes no sense given the realities of corporate strategy.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #87 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by too999 View Post

From what you wrote, all softwares are overpriced because CD cost $1 but some softwares are selling for hundreds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

You really need to learn how to read, that has nothing to do with what I wrote, the key word was "margin"

I think too999's point is that widely used software has enormous margins since the cost to make and deliver an additional copy is negligible.
post #88 of 183
Amazing numbers for a cell phone newcomer.
post #89 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple's iPhone now accounts for 8% of all mobile phone revenue and a whopping 32% of the industry's handset profits, according to figures published by Bernstein Research analyst Toni Sacconaghi.

The numbers, published by All Things Digital blogger John Paczkowski, aren't limited just to the smartphone segment market, but look at all mobile phones sold in the first half of 2009, a $65.7 billion industry.

Apple earned just over $5 billion in the first half of the year, making it the fifth biggest player in terms of revenue, behind Nokia, Samsung, RIM, and LG. Apple lead the world in actually making money however, with just over $2 billion in operating profits. The company earned just over $100 million more than second place Nokia, gobbling up a 32% share of the global profits made in handset sales and achieving operating margins of 40%.

Because these numbers reflect the first two quarters of 2009, they only take into consideration less than two weeks of the surge in sales generated by the new iPhone 3GS. Historically, the first half of the year has been the slowest for Apple's mobile sales as buyers begin to anticipate the next refresh.

In terms of operating margins, second place RIM earned closer to 20%, while Nokia, Samsung, and LG made closer to 10% margins. Sony Ericsson and Motorola continued to actually lose money in their handset sales, with the former losing $841 million and the latter loosing $762 million.

Ignoring the losses of Sony Ericsson and Motorola, but still considering their $8 billion in sales, Apple's 8% share of the industry's revenue still accounts for 25% of the world's profits earned from phone sales.

The numbers vindicate Apple's strategy of exclusively selling smartphones, rather than trying to soak up unit market share by marketing huge volumes of many models of low profit 'feature phones.' Nokia, the leader in phone sales worldwide, has watched its market share evaporate under competition from Apple and RIM by doing just the opposite.

Apple's smartphone business is structured similar to the company's approach to selling computers, where it owns a disproportionally large segment of the premium market. As with feature phones, Apple has largely ignored low profit PC segments such as high volume but low priced $400 desktops.

According to Apple's last quarterly report, "iPhone revenue and net sales of related products and services were…$2.8 billion…for the first six months of 2009. vs the the $5,094 billion reported in this article.

Certainly if this is true, and unless there is a clarification of the numbers posted, there is a credibility issue here.

In addition, every company has a different process in how they report their finances. Apple, like most companies does not disclose individual product breakdowns re sales or margins. How this author determined such would be interesting.

Although it doesn't surprise me that Apple is the most profitable of the group, how much Apple allots to service/support and the iTunes Store for the iPhone would be an important factor needed to deduce true profitability.

One thing that would surely drop Apple's operating margin relative to the rest of the industry, would be Steve Jobs being paid a salary. At a $1 a year, it is no wonder, Apple is more profitable.

P.S. In Apple's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, it appears that Apple paid over $1.2 billion in taxes so far this year.

Of course for most of the trolls here, it gives them fodder to regurgitate another problem with Steve, i.e., that he will do anything to screw us out of paying his fair share of taxes.
post #90 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul View Post

I wanted to be sure that these facts were true, so I checked the websites for their half yearly reports. Confirmed!!

In fact preception that Apple overcharges the consumer is more, we charge permium prices for premium products, BUT, MS permium prices for a less than stellar products and gets away with it, interesting :-)

LOOK I know many skip my posts. Your loss.


Everyone is wrong. Concerning the word overpriced.
Apple charges the exact correct price every time.
No one ever over or undercharges for long.
They go out of business.

In todays world of split second info shooting back and forth.
and all around trillions of times a second
Any person can compare a price between products
ANYBODY.

Verizon has a war with TIME WARNER FOR the bundle of tv/dsl/phone
VERIZON claims a monthly cost of 79 dollars to 99 dollars a month
Time warner charges me over 160 a month for the triple play of services. VERIZON has a ton of ads placed everywhere.
SO million's of people attempted to save 70 bucks or more a month by getting fios triple bundle
Guess what ??? VERIZON WAS MORE $ than time warner
>>>>>>>> Just like dell or any other box maker is more money than any APPLE computer. Those same mililons saw thru the bullshit dell ads and bought apple . Or they saw their needs werel filled by a lesser box .
So if anyone says apple is over priced then you a very stupid person
So stupid because after all the decades of bullshit selling hype every one should be a savvy shopper by now .

Msft sells all of its SW to apple and the dells of the world .
So why do so they say apple is over priced ??TO keep all you dolts confused about true market REALITY . MSFT IS over priced because many have no choice in a MONOPOLY SW market . MSFT CAN DO WHAT EVER IT WANTS . A 3bn euro fine was sneezed at by msft.

And it an incredible market down turn, the worst in 50 yrs >>how can apple increase there sales by 9 percent while the p/c market declines by 4 percent.? OVERPRICED and sales increased? what mind control apple bot secret formular does apple have to fool milions of us.

if apple is over priced then how can they sell tens millions upon scores of millions of pods phones and computers. Billions of songs.
1.5 bn apps .

APPLE does not have a heart . GET over it . They don;t care . Only shareholders count .
Apple knows that perfect product's sell more>get returned less >
Apple know's that fantastic customer service is a great way to do business .
APPLE knows that by being 100 percent GREEN is good for the health of the world and good for buisness. My 15" MBP 3.02GHz uni HAS A glass sccreen !!
Apple knows having a small product line up is cheaper> clearer and allows them to turn on a dime . Look at have fast apple took over podcasts.


What apple computers are for many people is over powered
many dolts who surf the net and do light home accounting only
go out and buy a $2800 laptop instead of a STRIPPED white MB
Or even a $600 DELL. THAT is what maybe some people mean to say.
When i bought my MB i went frim 13 " stripped to 15" 3.02ghz 7400rpm in a heart beat. COD4

APPLE is cheaper than any other computer maker in the world.
No one comes close .

DELL is over priced > the market place is telling us that even with there extremely low cost razor thin profit machines are still too expensive for them to buy .
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #91 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

One thing that would surely drop Apple's operating margin relative to the rest of the industry, would be Steve Jobs being paid a salary. At a $1 a year, it is no wonder, Apple is more profitable.

Not so. The fair value of all options-based compensation is now expensed (usually in the SG&A), and hence, any decent 'operating margin' calculation should already include an apportioned piece of SJ's total compensation, incl. options.
post #92 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

According to Apple's last quarterly report, "iPhone revenue and net sales of related products and services were$2.8 billionfor the first six months of 2009. vs the the $5,094 billion reported in this article.

Could you pls cite an exact source (page number, etc) - I am unable to see that in the June 27, 2009 10Q.

My guess is that, in claiming $5B+ in iPhone revenue, the analyst is adjusting for the revenue recognition issue, i.e., the fact that iPhone revenues are being recognized over a 24-month period.
post #93 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I really don't understand the logic of this statement. If there is more competition for gaining and retaining subscribers, why would the amount of the subsidy decrease? If they can, "guarantee that consumers [will] stick with them," why would they need a larger subsidy?

I think he meant that Apple could command such a large subsidy from AT&T only because the iPhone will bring them new subscribers with high ARPUs and loyalty.

The AT&T subsidy for the iPhone is near or at the top of the subsidy amounts any carrier provides for a phone. And AT&T certainly believes it has been worth it...
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #94 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Not so. The fair value of all options-based compensation is now expensed (usually in the SG&A), and hence, any decent 'operating margin' calculation should already include an apportioned piece of SJ's total compensation, incl. options.

Not necessarily true either. Many analysts exclude options-based compensation, particularly if it is a less accurate predictor of firm fundamentals, such as future cash flows, future earnings,
and contemporaneous returns and, thus, the value of the firm’s equity.

As I recognized previously, the numbers posted where not in accordance of what I could determine from Apple's last two quarterly reports. Since stock-option compensations are rather nebulous in nature, what Jobs makes relative to the iPhone would be even more so.

I would also grant that some of the biggest losing companies, seem to grant (I like that word) more than when they are profitable.

In any event, my position is simply that nobody can conclude that Apple is over charging based on this analysis.
post #95 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Ok, continue with this, and you're gone.

I agree that the poster was being a dick, but, if that's the standard for being banned, you might want to give the PoliticalOutsider forum a quick scan, too.
post #96 of 183
Chasing market share is a loosing proposition - way to go Apple!
post #97 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by justbobf View Post

Sounds like we are all being a bit over-charged, here...

Really? Who gives you the same features for less? My un-subsidized iPhone is cheaper then the unsubsidized Treo it replaced - and there is NO comparison as to which had the better hardware.
post #98 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by justbobf View Post

Sounds like we are all being a bit over-charged, here...

Why do we have to go through this everytime someone gets charged for something? The flip side of a free market economy is you don't have to buy it (the other being whatever the market will bear). The only things we have a right to whine about are things we have to do whether we like it or not = taxes and thieves (sometimes one and the same phenomenon).
post #99 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Could you pls cite an exact source (page number, etc) - I am unable to see that in the June 27, 2009 10Q.

My guess is that, in claiming $5B+ in iPhone revenue, the analyst is adjusting for the revenue recognition issue, i.e., the fact that iPhone revenues are being recognized over a 24-month period.

Note: 1st Quarter = $1.2 Billion; 2nd Quarter = $1.7 Billion; 3rd Quarter = $1.5 billion found in Quarterly Reports pages 27, 30 and 31 respectively.

Once again, it would be necessary to see the protocol used by the analysts.
post #100 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajectory View Post

I agree that the poster was being a dick, but, if that's the standard for being banned, you might want to give the PoliticalOutsider forum a quick scan, too.

If this were AppleOutsider, I would agree with you.

As for iPhone1982, I see he is gone.

Thank you, Melgross.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
post #101 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajectory View Post

I agree that the poster was being a dick, but, if that's the standard for being banned, you might want to give the PoliticalOutsider forum a quick scan, too.

Well, first, there's being a dick, and then there's aggravated dickery.

For threads that are linked from stories, it's best to not let the asinine stuff get out of hand, those are the threads that the general public are most likely to see.

Political outsider is its the site's cesspool. I don't remember if a non-member can even see that. I'm pretty sure Lundy would rather do away with that place if he could.
post #102 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Could you pls cite an exact source (page number, etc) - I am unable to see that in the June 27, 2009 10Q.

My guess is that, in claiming $5B+ in iPhone revenue, the analyst is adjusting for the revenue recognition issue, i.e., the fact that iPhone revenues are being recognized over a 24-month period.

I don't have the 10Q handy, but using Apple's quarterly financial press release, and its data summary (pdf) file, here are the numbers, and they do rely on adjusting for revenue recognition:

iPhone revenue (Q2 Jan-Mar) = 1.521B
iPhone/AppleTV GAAP adjustment (Q2) = 0.893B
iPhone revenue (Q3 Apr-Jun) = 1.689B
iPhone/AppleTV GAAP adjustment (Q3) = 1.405B
For a total of $5.508B.

Making an adjustment for AppleTV (and possibly 3rd party accessories revenue) leads to the $5.094B iPhone revenue number.

Separately, iPhone margins were estimated based on calculations done by Turley Muller using the differences between Apple's reported current and non-current deferred revenue and costs. His estimates are higher than those being provided by Sacconaghi.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #103 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

I don't have the 10Q handy, but using Apple's quarterly financial press release, and its data summary (pdf) file, here are the numbers, and they do rely on adjusting for revenue recognition:

iPhone revenue (Q2 Jan-Mar) = 1.521B
iPhone/AppleTV GAAP adjustment (Q2) = 0.893B
iPhone revenue (Q3 Apr-Jun) = 1.689B
iPhone/AppleTV GAAP adjustment (Q3) = 1.405B
For a total of $5.508B.

Making an adjustment for AppleTV (and possibly 3rd party accessories revenue) leads to the $5.094B iPhone revenue number.

Yes, but you can't assume that.
post #104 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Well, first, there's being a dick, and then there's aggravated dickery.

Great term.

Was iPhone1984 the same guy as SeahawkFan? They sounded quite alike.
post #105 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Yes, but you can't assume that.

Mark2005 is correct (of course I was the first one in this forum to come up with the calculation) and the only assumption he made was the percentage of the "hobby" appletv revenue.

Apple's SEC filings EXPLICITLY spell out what exactly is behind those non-GAAP adjustments.
post #106 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Mark2005 is correct (of course I was the first one in this forum to come up with the calculation) and the only assumption he made was the percentage of the "hobby" appletv revenue.

Apple's SEC filings EXPLICITLY spell out what exactly is behind those non-GAAP adjustments.

However, re the figures I reported earlier, the following statement is included, "iPhone net sales include the portion of handset revenue recognized in accordance with subscription accounting over the product's 24-month estimated economic life…"
post #107 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

However, re the figures I reported earlier, the following statement is included, "iPhone net sales include the portion of handset revenue recognized in accordance with subscription accounting over the product's 24-month estimated economic life"

If you actually read Apple's SEC filings --- you will know that their non-GAAP adjustments REVERSE all their 24 month revenue recognition accounting.
post #108 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Yes, but you can't assume that.

Not sure what you mean by that. Assume what?

I can't think of any way to get to $5B in 2009 iPhone revenues except by immediately recognizing the quarter's iPhone sales revenue.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #109 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

I don't have the 10Q handy, but using Apple's quarterly financial press release, and its data summary (pdf) file, here are the numbers, and they do rely on adjusting for revenue recognition:

iPhone revenue (Q2 Jan-Mar) = 1.521B
iPhone/AppleTV GAAP adjustment (Q2) = 0.893B
iPhone revenue (Q3 Apr-Jun) = 1.689B
iPhone/AppleTV GAAP adjustment (Q3) = 1.405B
For a total of $5.508B.

Making an adjustment for AppleTV (and possibly 3rd party accessories revenue) leads to the $5.094B iPhone revenue number.

Separately, iPhone margins were estimated based on calculations done by Turley Muller using the differences between Apple's reported current and non-current deferred revenue and costs. His estimates are higher than those being provided by Sacconaghi.

Thanks! Good stuff.
post #110 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Yes, but you can't assume that.

Well, fwiw, I too agree with mark2005 whose analysis is spot on (and samab) on this.
post #111 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


In any event, my position is simply that nobody can conclude that Apple is over charging based on this analysis.

I have no quarrel with that!

Moreover, if someone (willingly) bought (and then kept) the iPhone, it is, by definition, because they were getting Value > Price (i.e., consumer surplus) and hence it couldn't be 'overcharging' anyway, regardless what Apple charged for it.
post #112 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

If other mfrs were providing the value of an iPhone at a much lower price (due to lower margins), then you'd have an argument.

The fact of the matter is that Apple has been driving smartphone prices lower relative to value - when the iPhone 3G went down to $199, it was providing a much better experience (for most) relative to other phones costing $199 and up (and requiring a data plan).

The iPhone doesn't cost $199, never has, never will
post #113 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewbyh View Post

Apple will get what the market will bare and apparently it will bare a lot. Simple economics.

What do you mean by this? Of the categories they compete in the iPod is on the only one that has a large international market share.
post #114 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

The iPhone doesn't cost $199, never has, never will

I guess you figure this for a telling point, since it's one you've repeated, but in that no $199 phone of the iPhone's caliber actually costs $199 before subsidy, and given that the data plans for the iPhone are generally in line with industry norms, it's a little unclear what you're getting at.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #115 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

Sure, that is one definition but by that definition there are a huge number of products where you are overcharged. Take oil, in some countries the production costs of a gallon of crude oil might be only about $5/gallon, yet it sells for $60. In other countries (oil sands, Canada), production costs might be $55/gallon. Are you being overcharged by Saudi Arabia or do they simply have a competitive advantage.

Should Apple have sell its smartphones for less than Palm, just because they have lower production costs (due to economies of scale)?

Petrol prices are a bad example, as you are getting ripped off, especially by the likes of BP, Shell, and Mobil
post #116 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

Not sure what you mean by that. Assume what?

I can't think of any way to get to $5B in 2009 iPhone revenues except by immediately recognizing the quarter's iPhone sales revenue.

Even if we recognize that the analysts used the GAAP adjustment, there is no way that they can accurately forecast operating expenses directly related to any specific product.

But without a declaration of the protocol used in the report we can only assume.
post #117 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I guess you figure this for a telling point, since it's one you've repeated, but in that no $199 phone of the iPhone's caliber actually costs $199 before subsidy, and given that the data plans for the iPhone are generally in line with industry norms, it's a little unclear what you're getting at.

Just because the data plans are in industry norms doesn't mean you are not getting ripped off there as well.

And I guess you are referring to the USA, the smallest cellphone market of them all, there are other markets that sell data for a lot less than the US, and the iPhone take off is much smaller than the US.

Where I live the iPhone is overpriced, the data plans are very overpriced. This is not limited to the iPhone, as other brands are selling for a similar price. Will I buy one, no, they would have to half in price (unsubsidised) before I would look at that. Will I get a dataplan, no, they would have to half in price before I would look at that.

It is a consumers right to refuse to buy something, this argument is not limited to Apple, there are many an industry in the same position with excessive pricing.
post #118 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

If this were AppleOutsider, I would agree with you.

As for iPhone1982, I see he is gone.

Thank you, Melgross.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

You're welcome, except I didn't do it.
post #119 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

I don't have the 10Q handy, but using Apple's quarterly financial press release, and its data summary (pdf) file, here are the numbers, and they do rely on adjusting for revenue recognition:

iPhone revenue (Q2 Jan-Mar) = 1.521B
iPhone/AppleTV GAAP adjustment (Q2) = 0.893B
iPhone revenue (Q3 Apr-Jun) = 1.689B
iPhone/AppleTV GAAP adjustment (Q3) = 1.405B
For a total of $5.508B.

Making an adjustment for AppleTV (and possibly 3rd party accessories revenue) leads to the $5.094B iPhone revenue number.

Separately, iPhone margins were estimated based on calculations done by Turley Muller using the differences between Apple's reported current and non-current deferred revenue and costs. His estimates are higher than those being provided by Sacconaghi.

Mark, how did you calculate the GAAP adjustments? To be accurate you would have to know the actually individual units for each of the 2 iPhones.

As well, could you peruse the RIM CSO relative to this report? http://press.rim.com/release.jsp?id=2248
post #120 of 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Just because the data plans are in industry norms doesn't mean you are not getting ripped off there as well.

And I guess you are referring to the USA, the smallest cellphone market of them all, there are other markets that sell data for a lot less than the US, and the iPhone take off is much smaller than the US.

Where I live the iPhone is overpriced, the data plans are very overpriced. This is not limited to the iPhone, as other brands are selling for a similar price. Will I buy one, no, they would have to half in price (unsubsidised) before I would look at that. Will I get a dataplan, no, they would have to half in price before I would look at that.

It is a consumers right to refuse to buy something, this argument is not limited to Apple, there are many an industry in the same position with excessive pricing.

And where do you get the idea from that the USA is the"smallest cellphone market of them all"? Even the EU isn't one cell market, with the differing laws and such.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Report: iPhone grabs 32% of global handset profits in 2009