or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple edges Motorola with 3% global cell phone market share
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #41 of 87
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShepherd View Post

The last Strand report on cell phone market share showed that AT&T gained no market share from offering the iPhone. It might have prevented them from losing customers because of their service but not gaining customers.
post #42 of 87
He said he wanted 1% of the mobile phone market share. Exactly how is 1% being overly concerned about market share?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

If Apple doesn't care about market share, then why did Steve Jobs mention it in the original iPhone announcement, and why does he mention it during his other announcements?
post #43 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

That first quarter that you couldn't find an iPhone anywhere. They literally had stopped producing them sometime before April. It shows it was up 166% but remember that they only sold the original iPhone for a weekend before that quarter ended.

I recall this vividly because even though the 3G iPhone was imminent for release in July I (and many others, included NasserAE) were able to sell their original iPhone for more than retail price.

edit: It looks like it was Friday after 5pm sales and all of Saturday before that quarter ended.

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.
"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 #44 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

If Apple doesn't care about market share, then why did Steve Jobs mention it in the original iPhone announcement, and why does he mention it during his other announcements?

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.
"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 #45 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

I believe Verizon has just done something really stupid that is going to greatly move people over to ATT.

It looks like someone in Verizon got the bright idea to force users to get a data plan on most of their phones including ones often used by teens simply for voice and text. Verizon has about 50 phones they off and now 38 of them requirea data plan of either 9.99 or 29.99.

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.
"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 #46 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

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

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.
post #47 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

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.

As I have said posted, he does mention it, maybe you have a selective memory?
post #48 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

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.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #49 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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.
post #50 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

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.
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Reply
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Reply
post #51 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

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.

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.
"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 #52 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

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.

But that's because you continue to choose to misinterpret what others say, sending us down useless paths that lead nowhere productive.
"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 #53 of 87
I'm apparently not smart enough to figure out how a 3% market share is a monopoly, but it makes sense to Droidtards.
post #54 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

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.

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.
post #55 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

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

I haven't misinterpretted anything, well maybe the fact that I read what you wrote, not what you were thinking.
post #56 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

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
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #57 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

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

"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.)
"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 #58 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

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 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"?
"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 #59 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

Apple doesn't really care about market share per se, and it's focus isn't on market share.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

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
post #60 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

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

It means look at the post above it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

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

So are you saying that little point you made is not relevant and should just be ignored? If so, why did you make it?
post #61 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Sure, there are ... cut out the bollocks this "person" wrote ...

grow up.
post #62 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

It means look at the post above it.

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.
"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 #63 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

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?

Selective quoting. The rest of my post explained what that meant.
"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 #64 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Simple question to your statement

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."

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005

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.
"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 #65 of 87
Looking forward to Apple slipping into fourth place.
post #66 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

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

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.
"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 #67 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

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.

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.
post #68 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

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


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...

Quote:
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.

The number one mobile company statement was proved incorrect as well, Apple was lieing with statistics.
post #69 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

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.

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?
post #70 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by gfeier View Post

Just to be picky, the Nokia number in the paragraph 4 should be 107,800,000.

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.
post #71 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post

Apple should find itself in 4th place this year. They would have beaten RIM already, except for the 2-for-1 promo by Verizon - but it is just a question of time before Apple go ahead of RIM and Sony-Ericcson.

Amazing, when you consider that Apple did not sell a single phone just 3 years back!

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.
post #72 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by stormj View Post

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

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.
post #73 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

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'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #74 of 87
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
post #75 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

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

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.
post #76 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by stormj View Post

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


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.
post #77 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

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.


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.
post #78 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

So far, no one has given any rational explanation of what Apple has done that would get them into trouble with the DOJ.


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.
post #79 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post

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.

Same here. But I know several people who just won't leave Verizon but who eagerly want an iPhone.

Quote:
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?

Such a number looks like it could be useful, but there are so many variables in discussing the potential customer base worldwide. For example, Apple just sold about 1.2-1.5m iPhones into China Unicom's 160m+ subscriber base in its first 2 quarters, which is about half as successful as Apple selling 1.3m iPhones to AT&T's 80m subscriber base in its first 2quarters in 2007. But what portion of that subscriber base is looking to buy any smartphone?

Quote:
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?

AT&T and Verizon have each added about 12-13m net postpaid subscribers since 1Q07 (not including purchases like Alltel). Sprint has lost 8m postpaid subscribers, which I think is a faster rate than before iPhone was introduced, though I think Sprint's 2008 customer service fiasco is mostly to blame. Verizon has 82m postpaid subscribers, AT&T 65m, and Sprint 33m. (I have spotty T-Mobile numbers.)

AT&T and Verizon postpaid churn is about 1.1. Sprint and T-Mobile over 2. AT&T's is lower by about 15-20% since iPhone, Verizon's higher by about 20%, Sprint and T-Mobile lower by about 5-10%. So people are continuing to switch. But the penetration rate for cellphones has gone (or is about to go) over 100% in the US - meaning that many people have more than one subscription, and likely more than one phone.

Quote:
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?

Approximately 3.5m iPhone activations in year 1, 8.3m in year 2, 9m so far in 9 mos of year 3 (maybe another 2-3m in this quarter depending on the launch date for iPhone 4th Gen). Since some are upgrades of previous iPhones, I estimate about 15-17m AT&T subcribers are using iPhone; around 20-25% of AT&T postpaid subscribers. I think it's slowing, but cellphones are replaced every 18-24 mos. So AT&T may look saturated, but the 8m from year 2 are primed for upgrades. And of course, many who have not yet bought smartphones are also beginning to do so. Canalys estimates 65m will buy smartphones in North America in 2010 (47m bought smartphones in 2009).

I'll have to address the rest of your post later. Gotta go.
"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 #80 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShepherd View Post

First you say that people won't switch to a carrier to get the phone they want, then you say that brand loyalty is a known phenomena. DOES NOT COMPUTE It's been well documented that AT&T is gaining more customers and having less turnover since getting the iPhone.

The last Strand report on cell phone market share showed that AT&T gained no market share from offering the iPhone. It might have prevented them from losing customers because of their service but not gaining customers.[/QUOTE]

Strand Report....Strand Report.... oh yeah (via TUAW):

Quote:
Yep, we're all delusional, and Strand Consult offers "proof" of how we've all been taken in by Apple by listing 20 deficiencies of the iPhone platform (most of which, by the way, are no longer valid). The company even goes so far as to say:

In reality the iPhone is surrounded by a multitude of people, media and companies that are happy to bend the truth to defend the product they have purchased from Apple.

Not only are we all delusional wackos, but we're also liars! Strand wittily created a name for our disease -- The iPhone Syndrome -- and is glad to share this with everyone in a free report. Of course, you have to register to get the report, which most likely puts you on a marketing email list. The following quote may provide some insight into the potential customers they're hoping to reach with this report.

A sterling example of objective analysis, and a sharp-eyed and discerning consultant with a finger on the pulse of all things mobile because:

Quote:
Unlike many of those that sell information about the mobile future, we are not financially dependent on technology providers, phone manufacturers or infrastructure providers. We make a living from advising mobile operators on how to achieve success and make a profit for their shareholders.”

Translation from Danish to English: research coming from Strand Consult is admirably impartial in championing the cause of wireless carriers. Which isn’t to say it doesn’t contain any truth but it does say that we know who’s paying the company’s phone bills.

Riding comfortably in the carriers' pocket, delivering the kind of analysis only a pocketed analyst can give.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple edges Motorola with 3% global cell phone market share