Apple responds to Android sales, says NPD data doesn't tell whole story - Page 3

But since Apple never splits sales across models you are going to have a hard job proving it.

No, the "Snoop Nazi" is going down! Down 2.4% today alone.

If the iPhone prototype disclosed by Gizmodo is to be believed, the next iPhone will have flash ... and a working flash at that!

No, the market share she referred to was for sales in a defined period -- i.e., sales in Q1 of 2010. You're confusing market share with installed base -- i.e., all iPhones sold since it entered the market in 2007.

Hope you locked the browser on your kid's iPhone/iPad.

This is good news for iPhone users... downward pressure on pricing, incentive to offer more features and hopefully encourage them to ease up on restrictions.

It may not happen right away and next quarter will likely see a surge of iPhone 4 sales, but with the trend continuing, it will make Apple products more attractive for everyone. As a consumer of all kinds of products, Apple included, seeing one manufacturer way out in front is never a good thing. Fierce competition is very much applauded.

Truth be told, this topic would not have been an issue if Apple would have crushed the competition by opening up the U.S. market from the onset. The exclusive deal with ATT has only stifle growth. If I were Mr. Jobs, I would have flood the market with Iphone like yesterday. The only reason why Android phones are gaining any market shares as we speak is because the lack of iphone availability on other U.S. carriers. Why can the world have access to the iphone but yet three quarters of the U.S. market is disenfranchise from owning an iphone. I would like to own a iphone but I would like to stay on the Verizon network as well.

I think 'likely' underestimates the matter by several orders of magnitude. Next quarter's iPhone sales will stagger the smartphone market.

+1

This is great news for Apple fans. Next thing you know, Apple and AT&T will be offering iPhones free on contract. Some here will say that's a bad thing. But if you like Apple products and want an iPhone, it'll be great news for you!

Most of you have ignored 1 very important fact: the iPhone is far more profitable than ANY Android device or even the collective Android platform. Think of it this way, even if the Android platform outsells iPhone 2:1, Apple would still be making way more profit than any of those manufacturers and probably even them all combined.

Need I remind you all that Apple has been a successful and very profitable pc maker not by high volume of sales, but by higher margin, lower volume products. Its a very different business model, and market share is not as important to its success.

1) AT&T accounts for 1/3 of the MNO subs, not 1/4.

2) Even without an exclusive deal and locked device that still won't make the iPhone magically work on Verizon (or Sprint). Just look at the iPad 3G, which is unlocked and will only work on GPRS/EDGE do to HW limitations, not firmware or contractual limitations.

The keyword in that quote was **marketplace**. This would mean a specific service that Apple would intentionally bundle on your phone for the procurement of all things porn.


If you want porn, everyone knows you can find it with a browser. That's not the same as Apple providing it to you. But, of course, you already knew this.

What so bad about kids watching pron?

If it is the problem buy any usual phone for your kid. Nokias and SonyErricssons a pretty good.

[QUOTE=lowededwookie;1630372]That's an incredibly racist comment. Are you implying that China is unethical? Merely because FOX news says it is doesn't make it so. The Chinese are very hard working people and often take jobs that no one else wants.



Huh? I think you missed my point. I said ALL companies are unethical to some degree. Also, Fox News in the US supports businesses in China. They support free trade between the two countries or any country as a matter of fact. I don't know what they feed you in ANZAC but it sounds quite the opposite.

There was a recent survey that showed that of the customers of the three other networks, 49% would buy an iPhone if it were available there. for Verizon, that percentage rose to 52%.

So, it seems pretty obvious that Apple could have sold a lot more phones if it were available on all the networks Android is.

The only reason why so many Android phones sold here was because the iPhone wasn't available on those networks. I'm not saying that Android wouldn't have sold well, just not as well as it did, and that the iPhone would have sold a lot better. This would have reversed their positions last quarter.

Spoken like a true capitalist!

I am not a AAPL stockholder. So this matters to me how? If anything, shouldn't I be delighted if Apple makes less off me?

Except, if your kids care about getting porn, somehow, I don't think they'll stop looking after they check the app store/marketplace.

That's the choice Apple made. If they didn't have that AT&T exclusive, Android wouldn't have been able to get a toe into the US market. iPhones would have been everywhere. But they made their choice. And the consequences are playing out. I hope Steve has a good out clause in his AT&T contract.

It depends. A strong company can do more with its products, and take more chances. do you think that if Apple's sales were lower, and its profits were marginal, they could afford to come out with products that were not in their old line of business the way they have? They couldn't. With high profits, and a lot of money in the bank, they can afford to take chances that companies like Dell can't.

They can also afford to sell higher quality products that small companies like Archos can't. They can also afford to support them better.

I use my brand new unibody MacBookPro to visit these pages.

Absolutely not! A company that is profitable can put money toward innovation and customer service. They can take more risks with their ideas. If successful, then others follow suit trying to cash in on that success, thus pushing innovation throughout the industry which is better for consumers.

The problem isn't with Apple charging too much, as their quarterlies obviously show their sales increasing, but that others aren't good enough to force Apple's profit per unit down.

Do you really think the consumer is better off with the pre-iPhone smartphone market? Everyone who buys a smartphone, even if you never buy an iPhone, has gained from their advent into this market.


edit: Pipped by Melgross.

It's also not so simple. There's no disagreement in the industry, if you read articles that had come out in the early days, that Apple couldn't have gotten what it needed from networks if it hadn't had an exclusive deal at first. Networks used to getting their own way would never have done the work in their network and database to allow the visual voicemail that Apple had AT&T do for them, or allowed the App Store. At the time, visual voicemail was a pretty advanced thing to have. It was a major advantage for Apple. AT&T did that only because they were given an exclusive. There would have been no incentive if several companies all started selling it at the same time.

Now, the situation is different. It's a very popular phone wherever it is, so networks are willing to do the work to get the ability to sell it. But, Apple had to prove it would work, and be desirable in the first place. Likely, Apple convinced AT&T to take the chance of giving up the control on the phone that they had on the others. But in order to do that, they would have wanted a long enough contract to make it worth while if it worked out, which it did.

At this point, Apple could sell it on all four networks here and possibly double the sales, as has happened outside the US wherever they were able to have more than one company offer it.

The day it's announced that the iPhone is going to be on Verizon, which it will at some point, both Apple's and Verizon's stocks will rise, and AT&T's will plunge.

I think we all know that, no matter how we feel about Apple and the phone.

Verizon still considers VVM so advanced that they have to charge an extra monthly fee for it. The whole smartphone thing is such trouble to support that Verizon charges a $350 early termination fee, as well.

Yes, but you took it further than I did.

People are forgetting that it was Apple who led the industry down the path it's going now. If people will think back three years, and honestly evaluate what was available, they would see why this is so important.

Another thing that relates to profits has to do with the number of models a company has. The fewer models, and the more of each they sell, the higher their profits will be.

We have cell manufacturers selling 50 models of phones. from the cheapest junk to high end smartphones. They sell a lot of phones, like Nokia. But like Nokia, most of those sales are of cheap, hardly profitable models. Their individual smartphones don't sell that many, but all together they sell a lot. Unfortunately, that makes for less profit.

They need a lot of people and equipment to do the R&D on all those models, many of which sell only in a few tens of thousands.

Apple has one new model a year. They only sell two versions of that one model, and they only differ by the amount of memory. The second model is the old model, which was paid off earlier, so they can sell it much more cheaply.

This is why they can make much more profit.

The same thing it true for their computers. Have you seen how many models Dell and Hp have? Dozens! And each comes in as many as a dozen versions. That's one reason why their profits are so low for that. Apple has few computer models. R&D costs, again, can be lower, yet accomplish so much more.

So Apple sold 8.75 million phones last quarter. Almost all were of one model phone. How many different Android models, from how many different manufacturers did it take to sell the number of phones they sold? Quite a few.

So far less profits.

It will always be thus.

Well, I think it's obvious that their ideas have advanced. They've now said, several times, that they would like to have the iPhone, and that it's up to Apple.

That's not entirely true of course, as it's up to them to do what they would have to as well.

But it will happen. They both want it.

Why would I give my phone or credit card to a child?

And do you think porn was the only low-quality product in the app store?

Agreed! You know when the first one blinks when one of them offers 'tethering!' No doubt about it, it's a win, win for us poor consumers! And when I say, 'poor' I mean anyone not working for the bloodsucking Goldman Sachs!

How can you say that?

Have you ever owned or run a company?

I have, with two other principals!

We had three basic objectives:

1) return a fair profit to our owners and investors
2) provide the best possible products and services to our customers
3) have fun

All our employees were salaried!

We provided health care and retirement. *

* After several years, we were forced to discontinue our retirement program due to Federal Tax and Regulation changes. This is my biggest regret! Though, a couple of early employees received over $100,000 (half a million in today's dollars).


We had the reputation as the best damn computer stores in Silicon Valley.

We sold and serviced customers from Bogota and Guam to London to Sindelfingen... and points in between.

I am proud to say our valued (and repeated) customers included State, Local. Federal Govts.; major corporations (IBM, Apple, Adobe, HP, Xerox, Intel, Fairchild, US Army, Stanford University, Daimler Benz, EMI Thorne, Piper-Jaffray); well-known individuals (Mike Scott, Regis McKenna, Woz, John Sculley, Charles Schwab, Todd Rundgren, Bill Graham, Reid Anderson, Andy Hertzfeld, Jean-Louis Gassée, Dave Winer); not-so-well-known people (Steve Schwartz, Doc Holiday, Ralphy, Mike Ternaski)... to name a few of each.

We treated all fairly and ethically. We started in 1978 when microcomputers were an oddity, survived for 11 years through great times and bad (a computer store on every corner).

We sold the stores in 1989... and I can honestly say that we never treated anyone unfairly or acted unethically. During the tough times, we always treated our customers and employees well, even though we weren't making much money, or having much fun!

Yeah, I'm an Old Fart... but I owned and ran an ethical business... and I'm damn proud of it!

...and it really pisses me off when someone like you flippantly characterizes others through the looking glass of his own morals and ethics!

.

Agree, Apple's carefully understated point is that it's the platform that really matters in the long run, not just the individual devices. So iPod touch units matter to the platform. Journalists and analysts are having a hard time grasping that.

Look at Apple's iPhone and iPod touch advertising to see what's important. It's the Apps; it's the platform.

Without a doubt, Apple has changed the whole mobile market and loosened the grip of the carriers in controlling the user experience for the better and everyone benefits.

While I can see Android supplanting the iPhone OS in short order, I see Android to be more in the disposable budget category phone business, rather than the premium sector.

If for no other reason than the carriers and handset manufacturers disinterest to update the OS or firmware. Initial data already shows that and I believe this trend will accelerate as price points drop.

I enjoy the iPhone because over time, the phone has actually become better and more useful with additional OS updates, new applications and tighter integration. As such, it continues to deliver great value on a daily bases.

This is a first in the phone industry and, if Apple continues to do so, will allow them to grow share while maintaining their high margins.

If it's got a bunch of compelling features and a lower price tag, that is.

Remember how many folks are locked into 2-year contracts, or have just finished their 2-year contracts and want to spend some time with a cheaper plan...

While there is a small percentage waiting for the new phone and avoiding the 3GS, that's a very small percentage, not too many keep up on all the rumor sites' speculations.

I think price and form factor will be huge here, as well as some sort of feature that makes it stand out a bit from the Android offerings, and the 3GS. Most people really don't care if their phone has a slightly faster processor, or slightly better display. Not compelling enough reasons to switch or upgrade. Way better camera, smaller form factor, lower price will all prompt average people to upgrade...

The exclusivity in the US has certainly caused the other carriers to be hungry for a competitive handset. Which was the Palm Pre and these Android-based phones.

But my sense is the main reason Android hasn't equalled Apple in smartphone sales worldwide is that Android-based phone mfrs haven't made a big distribution and marketing push overseas (excluding the UK) yet. iPhone has only just expanded worldwide in a big way during this past year.

If you're located outside the US, can you weigh in on this? Has HTC, Motorola, and Samsung really pushed Android-based phones? Or have they and the phones just aren't catching on?

AOL had fans? The only good thing about AOL were the free floppies they kept mailing me.

whatever
who cares
the iphone is what people think "smartphone"
they could have a gazillion smartphones but i will buy the iphone

verizon paid this shill

oh yea the google customer service .....can't wait, and wait and wait and wait whew, and wait

Too a point. When you have $40 billion in the bank, I think it's well beyond being profitable so that they can strong and innovative.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't begrudge Apple and their success. I like Apple products. And I love the Mac I am typing on right now.

But I just find it absurd that people go on and on about Apple's profitability (people who are not stockholders that is). Don't they realize, this is their money Apple is talking about? Seriously, do people get this worked up over any other company? Are people glad to pay well over asking price for a house or car?

Clearly, you haven't been paying attention

This is very true. Android's big push was first in the US (and Canada). But Android is only really ramping up in Europe (outside the UK) now. Ditto for Asia. In a lot of places, Android arrived after Apple. And it certainly has the potential to do well. Look at the Sony Ericsson X10 in Japan. Look at how popular that is. So I would hope Apple doesn't write off Android as some on here.

But where Apple does sell on multiple carriers, they do well. Canada is a great example. We've got the iPhone on all 3 carriers. And iPhones abound. That said Android is gaining traction. And with all 3 carriers selling the iPhone, Android handsets are now marketed by the major carriers as differentiators, the way the lone iPhone carrier (Rogers) used to market the iPhone. One carrier (Telus) still has ads and store banners proclaiming the Motorola Milestone, and its far more prominent than the iPhone. So who knows how things will play out.

In a year's time, with Android handsets coming out on most major carriers globally, we'll finally get to see how the iPhone stacks up. For now though, Apple's still king.

Of course it's still profitable. With a two-year contract and $30 data plan, VZW rakes in $720 (assuming it doesn't allow early upgrades). If the handset cost VZW $300, that's $420 in extra revenue, which provides the needed cash flow for capital investment for their LTE network, and most of the $420 is profit.

But the real reason Verizon does BOGO is that their retail postpaid churn rate (net % of subscribers leaving) has grown by 20% since AT&T started selling iPhone. During that same period, AT&T's churn rate has decreased by 22%. This past quarter, the churn rate for both carriers is the exact same 1.07%; I believe it's the first time that AT&T has equalled VZW ever (I have data as far back as 1Q06 when AT&T was at 1.6 and VZW was at 0.92.) For comparison, Sprint and T-mobile churn rates have almost always been over 2%, and thus, they keep losing postpaid subscribers.

Look back at some history. VZW did some BOGO for Blackberries in 4Q08 and postpaid churn was 1.05 (12% higher than year before). Then in 1Q09, VZW churn surged to a never-seen-before 1.14 (23% higher than year before). That's when VZW committed to Motorola (and gave up control to allow Android Marketplace). In 2Q09 with the release of iPhone 3GS, VZW churn surged to 1.13 (22% higher than year before). Finally in 4Q with the release of Droid, they managed to hold churn to a negligible .01 increase and that's with BOGO in effect all through December. With continued BOGO on all smartphones in 1Q09, they finally got churn to decrease year-over-year. Can they afford to stop?

Not only did iPhone help AT&T to take subscribers from the other US carriers, but it has also helped AT&T to move way ahead of VZW in average revenue per user (ARPU). AT&T is taking in almost $62/mo per postpaid subscriber, while VZW is in the low 50s. And despite what you read on geek blogs, these iPhone owners are very loyal to iPhone (and thus, to AT&T).


Here's the AT&T (US) iPhone activation data:
1Q08: <1M (est) 1Q09: 1.6M 1Q10: 2.7M
2Q08: <.4M (est) 2Q09: 2.4M
3Q08: 2.4M 3Q09: 3.2M
4Q08: 1.9M 4Q09: 3.1M

Reading across, it's clear that every year, there is around a million more subscribers per quarter in the US.

Canalys estimates for all of 2009 that there were 4.6M Android-based phones sold in North America, with 7.8M sold worldwide (Gartner estimates Android at 6.8M worldwide, so again, take these numbers with grain of salt). Compare that to Canalys estimates of 10.9M iPhones in N Amer (600K more than AT&T reported activations but includes Canada), and 25.1M sold worldwide (this number is an actual from Apple reports).

I have not seen a breakout for North America or US for 1Q10 - I'm sure it's been done and Apple and others have seen it, but I'm not paying $5000 or more for those reports.

As I wrote earlier, I think NPD's survey is as accurate as these other estimates. 4Q09 and 1Q10 were breakout quarters due to VZW and Motorola Droid.

And as I wrote earlier, Apple doesn't really care, it's never been in first place anyway, and it's the platform (which includes iPod touch) that matters because it's the Apps and iTunes content that create much of the experience.

GS are not bloodsuckers, they are in business to make a profit and there are few companies who do it better. It's easy to kick a company when they are being presented as a scapegoat by the government to gain political advantage to push through absurd, ineffectual financial regulations. Have you actually studied the regulations proposed? They are virtually meaningless. You have been played.

Apple is like "comprehensive car insurance policy" from rental car company. you got to be very cautious of what is promised.\