IDC: Apple iPhone was No. 3 smartphone in 2009 with 14.4% of market - Page 2

Are you Tekstuds cousin or something? How many iPhone models are available in stores today . That is the question, is it not? I see 3 ... 3G, 16g 3Gs and a 32g 3Gs ... count with me now 1,2,3 .... there, wasn't that easy?

So then make sure you correct the member that said there was only one iPhone model. Its funny how selective we are on this forum.

It's not being selective.. When worldwide market share figures are being tallied, those figures are not broken down by Model > Storage capacity > Color. They are simply broken down by Model, and that would be iPhone.

Like I said Rim have very specific different models of phones.. Bold, Curve, Storm, etc. etc. Those are different models, iPhone, whether 16 or 32 gb are not different models (for market-share purposes at least..)

Actually when stats are done rating the top smartphones they use the iPhone 3g and 3Gs. At least they were in 2009. That may have changed in 2010. Also I can never understand why anyone cares about market share. If you like your phone who the hell cares where it places or how much market share it has.

Clearly APPL stock isn't reflective of how Apple is doing. The stock dropped like a rock again today. Thats with record sales and the iPad which was suppose to be the biggest tech offering this year.

Like I said in above post, we are talking about models for MARKETSHARE purposes. The storage capacity do not matter, they are still condsidered just an iPhone..

They are not different product models like an iPod shuffle, an iPod nano, an iPod touch or an iPod classic..

See the difference?

IDC would never be able to breakdown numbers by model and storage capacity..

Yes, you're right, 3G and 3GS are two different models.. However, storage capacity does not qualify as a different model. So Apple has 2.

This is kind of what I suspected (that the definition was really, really broad).

I bet it even covers any phone that is merely capable of doing email or web, regardless of whether it's actually used. For instance some phones *can* do email, if you sign up for an email account with the carrier, but most people will never do that and the sellers of the phone don't even expect many to do so. It's just an extra feature the manufacturer supplies on the request of the carrier.

To the guy that said I was hair-spliting, I think you missed my point. I was just trying to reconcile the huge numbers that Nokia gets with the real world experience of hardly ever seeing any one use any of Nokias smartphones (even in Europe).

Smartphone stats seem to be as skewed in their own way, as desktop OS stats are in their own way. Sure >95% of the world uses Windows, but if you leave out the huge corporations, the call centres, and all the people who have to use it because it's their job it's more like 75% or even 60%.

I don't really see what your point is here other than being a d*ck. You've gone through my post and made some snarky remarks and pointed out some minor errors, but you haven't substantially addressed anything that I said (although I get that you probably disagree with me). It's also full of more assumptions (about me) than mine had about Nokia.

This is more like mental masturbation than an actual debate. For that reason you may note that my reply similarly contains nothing substantial, and that I don't actually want to engage you in said debate.

Have a nice day.

Keep beating to that drum right into the trash bin as your profits collapse.

Always room for improvement. I'll be happy when the iPhone is number one.

That's my trademark. Thanks using the ™

It seems that in some people twisted thinking if a company market share for a product dropped from 67% to 38% then that company is doing great. But if another company increased its market share, for the same product, from 0% to 14% for the same period then this company is doing bad. Go figure.

I can understand you being bitter for the collapse in any meaningful relevance in the global Smartphone market of your beloved Nokia but even you for you that is just pathetic.

NOTE: this rant isn't about the superiority of the iPhone above all others but more generally that Nokia et al have dropped the ball vs. iPhone OS/Android/WebOS. This may be perhaps irretrievable - like when you kick your ball into the evil neighbor's yard where the big dog is - just give up or by a new ball - or maybe not?

Cherry picking a headline that was dubious at best and pretending that that negates the market leading growth in iPhone shipments, iPod sales, Mac unit sales, share of net industry income, mobile web surfing share, computers above $1000 etc. is just laughable.

To your point - Nokia had its chance to be relevant and blew it (so far) - it has Symbian and Maemo all over its face. Selling 10M N and E series phones across all models vs. nearly 9 mil iPhones is the real statistic and even that is being kind to Nokia (E-series are OK but hardly close to par with iPhone/N1/Droid etc.) Let's face it, the old handset guys were caught on the hop by the superphone revolution and had too much pride to realize that they are just not good at what makes a successful phone these days. Palm are the only ones who have made the leap and for them it is probably too little too late for scale and market reasons (to be seen). The Koreans (LG/Samsung) have already bitten the bullet with Android phones (although they still have pockets of belief that they can take on Apple/Google at SW platforms). HTC are the only ones who have seen the light and realized that SW is not their thing anymore and got onto 2 bandwagons (WinMob and now Android).

Today, the old line phone makers are coasting by on distribution, price and brand recognition in the decreasing number of markets without iPhone/Android phones. Witter on about India all you like but as superphone distribution picks up there, Nokia will decline if all they bring is their current weak game. The middle class in India are getting more sophisticated and affluent at equal and rapid speed. None of that bodes well for Nokia's anemic options.

In most of the world, iPhones are free with a mid/high end contract, and subsidized wit a low end contract (see UK). Even in the US, a 3G is $49 refurbed from AT&T with a contract. Price is not the obstacle. Unlocked price is a red herring in many markets and where it isn't the N-series are not appreciably cheaper than iPhone.

Nokia are big enough and smart enough to turn things around but to pretend they are not in a world of hurt about having their lunch eaten by competitors they didn't even know existed 36 months ago, you are smoking some primo stuff. It passes the long nights in a Finnish winter no doubt...

How so? Nokia charges pretty astronomical prices for their high end models while making conservative models with less horsepower and saving cash as well. As long as people buy their phones they are making a profit

Apple is notorious for having high profit margins, should there be an "iPhone killer" it will be not only because of the phone but the price to carriers.

Basic business logic dictates that it is not true at all that if people buy them they must make profit - that's how people make a loss. That said, it is very unlikely that Nokia sells much if any of its current phones at a loss but almost certainly at a much lower percentage and absolute $ profit than Apple. This is the prime contributor to cash available for investing in R&D, acquisitions etc.

Nokia is not poor but can now be casually outspent by Apple in all kinds of areas (R&D, advanced component procurement, etc.) Again - Nokia isn't dead yet but the trends are not good. Of course, one could have said the same for Apple in the mid-90's and look at it now - never say never...

Note that Carriers in most developed or more affluent sectors of developing markets don't care so much about price to them as total lifetime income from a phone - a $600 (which they sell for $300) phone that nets them $2600 in 2yrs of fees is a way better deal to a carrier than a $100 phone that nets $960 over 2 years. The iPhone may be the exception where it nets you $2300 in fees per subscriber but costs you $25Bn in network upgrades ;-)

Apologises. You're right, I assumed that you had very limited exposure to both Nokia's global dominance and the phones themselves. I could well be very wrong.

By the way, the definition of a smartphone used by the New York Times (i.e. a phone capable of e-mail) is not the definition used within the industry. All of the main analysts (including IDC) use something along the lines of the first definition on Wikipedia. In otherwords, "a smartphone is a phone that runs complete operating system software providing a standardized interface and platform for application developers". Bloggers, journalists and the general public tend to have a looser idea of what a smartphone is.

But in the same time that market has grown, so the 38% now is a lot bigger than when it had 67% a while back

You edited your post, and put down "evidence" as the reason, yet no where in the post is there any evidence, got a link or two to back up your "most of the world" quote?

Basically, these numbers tell us that the iPhone is the #1 smartphone in the world, but Apple is the #3 smartphone manufacturer in the world..

Apple shipped 25 million smartphones in 2009.
Nokia shipped 67 million smartphones in 2009.

Even though Nokia shipped many more smartphones, they also have many more smartphones than Apple has. For discussion sake, lets assume Nokia had 10 different smartphones shipping in 2009, 67 million divided by 10 = 6.7 million for each model.. Extremely rough numbers of course, but all of Apple's 25 million smartphones were iPhones.. So, It is extremely doubtful that Nokia or RIM have any one phone that shipped more than 25 million.

I think you can be happy Anyone disagree with this thinking?

The market growth applies to all carrier (Apple, RIM, and others) and not only Nokia. The fact is Nokia is losing market share year-over-year regardless of market growth while Apple and RIM market share is growing.

Oh, and based on the reported 15% market growth, 38% market share today is not bigger than 67% three years ago, which confirm what we already know and that is Nokia growth is slower than the overall market growth. Check your math.

With all due recognition, of course.

I checked - I don't think you have actually trade marked that statement.

Oh - but wait - I see what you've done there.

I remember the leaked WinMo 7 (hehe 'WinMo') idea of a motion-aware phone,
using, of all things, the phone's camera

I can (can't?) imagine the battery life of a WinMo 7 (there's that name again) motion-aware phone.

BTW this was back in November 2008, we're still waiting MS

"Microsoft Research has a technology concept that uses the device's camera as a motion sensor,
enabling motion control while using the device. WHAT? the camera?
This means devices will not need accelerometers and other complicated gyroscopes to get these features,
and that existing Windows Mobile devices could be upgraded to full Windows Mobile 7 functionality." - yeah right - how's that working out for ya MS?

a link to 'Apple iPhone Doomed To Failure'
http://www.networkworld.com/communit...?nwwpkg=iphone

IDC used the reported numbers from Apple for iPhones (8.7m in last quarter) and from Nokia for converged devices (20.8m in last qtr). According to Nokia's financial release, Nokia has two categories - mobile phones and converged devices, defined as follows:
- mobile phones as "Series 30 and Series 40-powered devices ranging from basic mobile phones focused on voice capability to devices with a number of additional functionalities, such as Internet connectivity, including the services and accessories sold with them." and
- converged devices as "Smartphones and mobile computers, including the services and accessories sold with them." (Does this include Booklet 3G?)

So converged devices is everything else that is not Series 30 and Series 40. It includes N-Series (N95, N97, N97 mini, N900, N86, N85), E-Series (E72, E75, E71, E66, E63, etc), X6, 5230, 5800, 5530, 5730. I'm not sure how Nokia classifies its Booklet 3G mini-laptop.

I think some of the E-series phones shouldn't really be classified as smartphones, but if that keeps Nokia from recognizing the threat, then so be it.

Also, to help with a definition, recognize that all Blackberries are considered smartphones.

I agree, as a quick look at Nokia's US website shows its smartphones sell without any contract for anywhere from 199 (E63) to 569 (N900). The ASP for Nokia smartphones is 186 EUR or 255 USD.

Maybe they're a good value?

Why is that, they contain all the smartphone functionality, include funcationality the iPhone doesn't

But Nokia still gets paid for those "free" phones, or do you want to stop counting the iPhones that come free with contract as well?

Yes, why when Apple sells two different phones with two different names do you lump them together? The iPhone 3G and 3GS are different phone models.

Do you have trouble with percentages? The number of smartphones that Nokia sells has gone up year after year, the market changes each year.


ok, in 2006 there was 80 milion smartphones sold, this was pre iPhone, and they had 48% market share (about 38 million), this new report lists them having a 39% share with 69 million sales. That would put them having greater than 15% growth each year (and yes 38% is bigger than 67%)

No one is saying the are selling less units. We are saying the are lagging behind in growth in this segment.


I miss quoted something and you are building your calculation on that mistake. Nokia had ~49% (not 67% as I wrote earlier) smartphone market share in 2007. In 2009, Nokia market share dropped to 38%. I've got news for you, if your market share is dropping that means your growth is lower than the overall market growth.
We can read the tables. We know that in 2009 Nokia sold 67 million units, RIM 34 million units, and Apple 25 million units. But if you look at the table you will see that Nokia growth for 2008/2009 is 11%, which lower than the overall market growth of 15%. On the other hand, for the same period 2008/2009 RIM and Apple achieved 46% and 81% growth, respectively. Even a blind person can see that Nokia is losing market share to Apple and RIM.

And here is Nokia solution to the problem.

Because as far as marketshare statistics are concerned, they are not broken out by 3g or 3gs, it is broken down simply by Apple iPhone.

Right Einstein-and the people who invented the television get all the credit for all the programming today and so on and so on. And that LED or LCD your viewing this on. Give it up already.

Not exactly. In 2007 and 2008, Nokia sold 60.5m smartphones. It didn't go up. Plus from 2007 to 2009, annual flagship N-series sales declined from 37.7m to 18.7m.

If you sell 1 phone, then sell another, your growth is now 100%

No, it is due to the fact that Apple doesn't split out the sales details, if you go by that logic you can combine all the Nokia sales into S60, and Maemo

Yeah.. Like said before:

Apple is doomed!

That's you saying that, not me

Apple's share price didn't drop after their most recent earnings report. On Jan. 26, the first full day of trading after their after-hours Jan. 25 earnings call, Apple's stock gained 1.4% while both the S&P and Nasdaq fell. This was considered a good uptick , considering that blowout results from the likes of Google and Intel failed to move Wall Street in January.

Why do people always assume that it's a zero-sum game? Q4's results show the top three manufacturers added more than 3 million sales compared to Q4 2008. They're all winners.

Complete and total nonsense.

AAPL share price got wacked following the iPad media event, NOT the Q1 results announcement when the iPhone numbers were disclosed. Generally speaking, attributing stock fluctuations to specific product news is dicey at best. AAPL traditionally sells off in January following results and Macworld, but if you must make a product related cause and effect, it's clear that it was reaction to the iPad, not iPhone.

iPhone results were actually quite good this quarter for Apple. Less than 'whisper' number, but c'est la vie. iPhone 3GS was 6 months old by the end of that quarter, and there were brand new Androids as well as news of the new Google phone. Nevertheless a good iPhone quarter for Apple. They may take heed and save a phone update for the holiday quarter next year to counter any "new" competition that might surface (or not), but iPhone is on track.

You can hate Apple or love Nokia to your heart's content, but your nonsense needs to be called out for what it is.

I think this is the important point.
When people say the word "smartphone" everyone assumes you are talking about a class of product like the iPhone, or Pre or N97.

But Nokia's share of this class of device is declining rapidly. They only sold only 4m N-series units last quarter.

So when Nokia say they have sold 20m smartphones, they bulk-out that number with the
5800 Musicphone and other low-end devices which have a much lower retail value.

Basically as long as it runs Symbian - Nokia call it a smartphone. Which means, of course, that Nokia can continue to grow its "smartphone market-share". But that only gives an illusion of a healthy business.

C.

They all have email, they all have internet browsers, they all support 3rd party applications, why are they not smartphones?