Apple edges Motorola with 3% global cell phone market share - Page 2

This is just a convoluted and overly complicated way to say that you want the iPhone on Verizon.

It would be more interesting if it were not for the fact that this past quarter AT&T added a record number of iPhone's. AT&T had less churn than Verizon and AT&T added more subscribers than Verizon. I'm not saying that Apple should not expand the iPhone to more carriers, there is little reason why they could not use T-Mobile. At the same time people keep coming up with these ATT/Apple dooms day scenarios that never play out.

How can anyone say with any degree of accuracy that AT&T gained no customers because of the iPhone. The results of the past three years simply don't support that.

Before the iPhone, Verizon was growing faster and had less churn than AT&T. Now AT&T is growing faster and has less churn than Verizon. What exactly has changed? It certainly is not the perception of AT&T's service being better than Verizon's.

He said he wanted 1% of the mobile phone market share. Exactly how is 1% being overly concerned about market share?

You are correct. But doesn't it show the genius of Apple to release for just a couple of days so they know they could easily beat it the next year.

Of course, they didn't know then that the following year, they'd not be making any.

Does saying that you want to get just 1% of the market really show that you're interested in market share? In any case, the key metric was 10m units, which Apple called 1% (10m was actually less than 1%, even when he said it.)

He rarely mentions "share" directly when talking iPhone or iPod touch. Rather he says things like how many iPhone units were sold, how Apple is the number 1 mobile company by revenue, how Apple sold more than RIM, etc.

But I'm sure that as soon as Apple has more market share than any other phone maker, they'll be sure to mention it.

Are you sure? Isn't it just for "smartphones"? Phones that have 3G, Wifi and full browser?

I think AT&T also requires all smartphones to have a $30 plan.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

So I was just mistaken when Steve discussed Market Share in the iPhone OS 4 presentation he gave? And I was even more mistaken when he used the US browser share data to present his market share? So Apple doesn't discuss market share, but they use one statistic to make their market share look higher. Ok, I am sorry, you must be right.

As I have said posted, he does mention it, maybe you have a selective memory?

Or maybe you have a logic deficiency. The mention of marketshare when it suits their marketing needs does mean that their goal is marketshare. Their goal is profits within a specific market. If that also gets them more marketshare, great, but they are not focusing on marketshare as their goal or they'd be licensing Mac OS X to other OEMs, selling $250 netbooks and selling iPhone dumb phones.

Again, you miss the points, Apple mentions market share, I made a statement, I provided facts to back it up, and again, like clockwork here you come, wasting everyones time.

Increasing market share is the result of Apple's success, yet market share is not what drives Apple. Apple is all about delivering a unique product / experience that works and that is profitable for Apple.

Verizon created three catagories of phones. The first is 3G Smartphones which require a 29.99 data plan. Which I consider normal. Then what they did is they took another group of phones that never required data and called it Multimedia Smartphones and they now require a 9.99 or 29.99 data plan. They then have a third catagory of cheap phones that do not require data.

So out of 50 phones 38 require some form of data plan.

Like I said the biggest joke of all is the 9.99 required data plan is only for 25mb.

What they did is took fairly popular phones like the LG Envy, Evny Touch, LG Chocolate and many of the Samsung phones that never required data and now to upgrade to those phones you now have to take at least a 9.99 data plan.

Yes, Jobs mentioned browser share as one way to look at market share in terms of usage; clearly it's not in terms of sales, which is what we've been talking about here.

Browser usage is a useful metric for developers who want to know whether mobile device users are apt to use the browser to access the their web apps or web sites. So it's useful to mention at the OS 4 platform presentation to developers.

I may have a selective memory but I was referring to market share using unit sales. And there's no disputing that at every quarterly report and conference call, Nokia reports it's projection for it's market share for the upcoming quarters.

Other than talking about its original 10m (or 1%) goal, Apple has never again set a projection for iPhone market share - rather, it's been busy building it's iPhone platform and telling developers what they need to know about the App market size.

But that's because you continue to choose to misinterpret what others say, sending us down useless paths that lead nowhere productive.

I'm apparently not smart enough to figure out how a 3% market share is a monopoly, but it makes sense to Droidtards.

oh, so now you are changing what you meant, you didn't mean they don't talk about market share, it is now they don't set market share figures, maybe if people wrote what they meant initially we wouldn't have all these side discussions proving people wrong all the time.

I haven't misinterpretted anything, well maybe the fact that I read what you wrote, not what you were thinking.

Yes you have, just like you always have. You claim that everyone is wrong yet you are the only one who doesn't seem to follow simple comments. Heaven forbid we actually use a compound-complex sentence.

Sure, there are people reading this site from all over the world, of all ages and intelligence that I would like speak differently too if I were addressing them one-on-one, in person. If you are a "special needs" person or don't speak English well just let the poster know and they will likely clarify. The problem is just get nasty and pick fights that you can't win instead of addressing your concerns with a post politely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading..._special_needs

"As I have said posted" is nonsense talk. What does it mean?

(This is what you do. Take one little piece of a post and pick at it, all the while ignoring the main point.)

I didn't change what I meant.

Go back and read what I wrote - "rarely mentions share directly" - and we were discussing market share in terms of units sold.

Do you understand the words "rarely" and "directly"?

There is the original line I was referring to, "Apple doesn't really care about market share per se", I don't see the words "rarely" in there at all, now all I said is, if they don't care about, which is what you said, then why do they mention it?

Simple question to your statement

It means look at the post above it.


So are you saying that little point you made is not relevant and should just be ignored? If so, why did you make it?

Again, you are putting words into peoples mouths, I don't think everyone is wrong, just you.


grow up.

Then why didn't you write "look at the post above it" instead of "As I have said posted"?

And again, since you completely missed it, "As I have said posted" is not proper English, and means nothing.

Selective quoting. The rest of my post explained what that meant.

You're quoting posts out of order, and selectively ignoring responses, which is what you do here.

Anyway, below was my response to your first post, and it clearly says "rarely" and "directly."

Looking forward to Apple slipping into fourth place.

It was responded to but you choose to ignore the response and pick at tangential stuff.

Which is what you do and everyone here knows that.

It was a simple grammatical error, if you had choosen you could have understood what I meant, after all, I am told I should understand what you are thinking, not what you wrote.

And by the way you replied to my message it appears you like to pratice this as well...



Yes I read it, you included a number of details that should have been in your original post.

But you raise another point by including your reply...


The number one mobile company statement was proved incorrect as well, Apple was lieing with statistics.

No, you made the statement originally, then with my question you said I pulled the one line out and excluded the overall message, that is why I asked you, was that statement really relevant, if not, why did you make it?

You question my motives, yet I really have to question yours, it is a simple question, was the statement you made was not relevant to the overall message, then why did you make it?

If you read the chart carefully, you'll note that these units are based in thousands of units.

107,800 x 1,000 = your number.

Remarkable results indeed. But somehow I doubt that the Verizon BOGO sale had that much of an impact on RIM's number. We are talking about one of the brands offered for sale on one carrier in one country. The US maybe big, but last I checked, the US market does not equate to the global market.

Nobody said 3% market share is a monopoly. But doesn't Apple have like 25% or higher market share for smartphones?

And aside from that (I could be wrong) but I always understood that a company does not need to have a monopoly to face anti-trust penalties.

No, Apple doesn't have a 25% share of smart phones. More like 16% worldwide. Not that it matters - even 25% isn't anywhere near where they'd need to be to control the market.

You can face antitrust penalties for ANY size - but you have to do something wrong. For example, if you collude to set prices, you can be penalized even if you're a small player, but that clearly hasn't happened here. So far, no one has given any rational explanation of what Apple has done that would get them into trouble with the DOJ.

I have no time to respond to each, so let me just respond in general, and mostly with questions.

First: I have no interest with a Verizon iPhone, even if Apple manufactures one for them. I did not have a very good experience with their customer service.

Now, as to the growth rate data provided here for the iPhone, the data reflected a tremendous expansion worldwide, the past two years. Has someone standardized the growth rate, once the tremendous increase in the potential customer base worldwide is factored in the equation?

In regard data pertinent to the US only, I have not seen any long term comparative study of the customer base of Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile -- before and after the iPhone was introduced. Sprint has been losing customers, like crazy, even before teh iPhone was even introduced. Where was the additional AT&T customer base coming from to account for this growth? Were they all largely from Verizon or from the bleedsing customer base of Sprint? or T-Mobile?

For the AT&T data itself, if the iPhone data shows a linear growth rate already, rather than a accelerating growth rate, then we expect the next stage to be the deceleration phase. Or, does anyone really think that the iPhone growth rate in the US will remain linear "forever", if Apple sticks exclusively with AT&T?

How long has RIM been selling through AT&T? Among these AT&T RIM customers, what is the existing customer base? Was there a dramatic and continuing rate of decline of AT&T RIM customer base since the iPhone was introduced? When did AT&T begin selling Android phones and growth rate within the carrier?

If the iPhone exclusive to AT&T is not significantly cannibalizing the AT&T RIM user base, nor impeding the growth rate of Android phones sold through AT&T, these data might or would be indicative of brand loyalty or perhaps provide insight of the userbase of those who do not like anything Apple. It could be predictive also of the scenario that may play out within Verizon when (not if) Apple decides eventually to manufacture a Verizon iPhone. It is also possible that former Verizon customers who became AT&T customers because of the iPhone might migrate back to Verizon. However, even with a Verizon iPhone, we cannot underestimate the animosity and number of anti-Apple haters. For this group, there are more viable choices now, instead of just the limited choices of Wintel vs Apple computers during the height of the PC era.

In regard timing, is it really in the best interest of Apple or its current and potential customers to simply wait until the LTE platform becomes more in widespread use in the US?

Based from circulating information -- some unsubstantiated rumors that Apple has not categorically denied -- Apple may indeed be exploring (if not already preparing) to manufacture non-GSM iPhones. More than likely, the foray into non-GSM iPhones may begin abroad, especially China, since this is not covered by any contract between Apple and AT&T. More than likely, non-GSM iPhones will become available in the US, once Apple's contract with AT&T expires, or if Apple could find a loophole in the contract.

There is no technical constraint that will impede Apple to create non-GSM phones. Other phone manufacturers have shown that this is technically and profitable.

My own bias is that it would be a great mistake for Apple to cede the customer base of other US carriers or even abroad -- unless any of us believe that there will always be massive and increasing rate of migration of customers from Verizon to AT&T.

It may become a different ballgame altogether if Apple continues to innovate, provides a more satisfying integrated ecosystem and maintains an Apps Store that is significantly much better than those of the other phones. In this regard, I welcome the competition from the likes of RIM, Google, and other phone manufacturers to motivate and keep Apple on its toes.

The only caveat to these speculations is that we won't have definitive answers until after a few years. The other harsh reality is that no corporation has remained dominant forever, in any industry. Many, in fact, completely vanished.

CGC

He never said Apple was "overly concerned" He said "If Apple doesn't care about market share..."



Argue against his position, not made-up words that you put into his mouth.

Don't be so hard on yourself. Likely your problem is not stupidity. Instead, it seems to be ignorance.

The relevant market is NOT cellphones in general. Apple obviously has no monopoly in the cellphone market. Apple cannot exert monopoly power in the cellphone market.

Nobody, not even your 'tards, claim that 3% market share in cellphones is a monopoly.

You are on the right track. You are trying to define the relevant market.

From everything I have seen, the relevant market is mobile phone apps. Apple sells more than everybody else combined.

From what I have been able to gather, I think that Apple's recent dev agreement changes are under scrutiny.

The changes make it clear that if a dev wants in on a vendor with monopoly power in the app business (Apple), it must write its app in such a manner that it is unsuitable for any other vendor's store.

IOW, they are trying to use their power in selling apps to hurt other app vendors, and in turn, other hardware manufacturers.

So the allegation seems to be that they are using their monopoly power in one market (mobile apps) to disadvantage competitors in another market (mobile phones).

I have no idea of whether this analysis is valid. It is my best guess.