or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's 4% mobile market share rakes in over half the industry's profit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's 4% mobile market share rakes in over half the industry's profit - Page 2

post #41 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Nope. Control+Command+D tells me that "overcharging" means to charge someone "too much" for a product or service.

"Too much" would mean that no one can buy them. Seems that Apple sells more every quarter than the last. Guess that people don't think they're overcharging.

Relative market share is stagnating. Nokia also sells more every quarter than the last. In unit sales they had a blow out year. Nokia are declining in market share.

So how is Nokia doing? Seems to have increased its unit sales by 36% Y-O-Y? So a fantastic year for them?

Or are we going to judge Nokia by market share and Apple by revenue?

Quote:
Not going to happen. Doesn't need to happen.


If it doesnt happen they will just repeat the mistakes of history. Apparently plenty of Apple fans want them in that niche. Fair enough. These things are vicious circles, however. Less market share, less apps. Less apps, less market share. Its not as if this is a difficult thing to understand.

And then, eventually, profit drops.

Apple have a potential market share at a certain price point, and obviously a larger one at a lower price point. Maintaining market share in a rapidly growing market means lots of profit. It is when the market itself it saturated that you have to grow market share to grow unit sales.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #42 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Apple can afford to sacrifice margin for volume

So, if you were in charge of a currency, you'd devalue it?

I'll say again, prices are set by markets not by CFOs.

The reason Dell and HP have pitifully small profitability numbers is not because they are generous.

It's because they are unable to add value.

C.
post #43 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Just shows how discriminating people will pay a fair price for quality.

Quote:
No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby. Henry Louis Mencken

'A fool and his money are soon parted'

It all depends on your point of view.

I own a few Apple products, but none of them run iOS. I perceive them to be too expensive and lacking in value, compared to alternative products.

I think the principle reason Apple has gotten away with charging so much for the iPhone, is that for most buyers, the true cost of the device is buried in a 'plan' and since it is effectively paid for in installments, the true cost is easier to bare.

There was a nice example in another thread a few days ago where some bright Aussie was proudly declaring that in Oz you can get a IP4 for 'free'. He and others really believe they are getting a $600-700 device for free when the total cost of their plan is $2000 or so over two years.
post #44 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

I understand that there are AAPl investors on here ( as I am in a limited capacity), but it is also a site for fans. In that capacity the statement.

Apple is overcharging.

makes sense.

Although the Mac also makes money, and much of it over the $1000 mark, the fact remains that plenty of software is not available for it at 5% of the market place. In fact we are beholden to Apple and MS for a lot of stuff.

If these kind of figures continue - these relative market share declines or stagnations - then Apple will decline and the iOS platform will not be the app platform of first choice, or any choice, for developers.

Any students of Apple will know this. They really lost in the early 90's not the 80's. They survived the 80's because the race to the bottom took out the home computers, but in the early 90s they had a chance to become a large player - getting to 12% of the market in 1992 ( in effect taking over the vacuum left by the collapse by all other non-MS players).

Apple's reaction to this was to wallow in money. At 12% they may well have been the largest single computer manufacturer by unit ( or in the top 3) and certainly very high in revenue and profit. And then they lost to clones. Soon they were in the red. Soon they were < 3%.

Sure they start from a better place this time, but <10% is on the cards.

Apple can afford to sacrifice margin for volume - thats the story of growing to be one of the biggest electronic companies ever - and they have to. And they have to now. This year.

Perhaps you have just awoken from a deep sleep?
measured by revenue Apple is only the 110th "largest" company in the world.
But guess what? By market capitalization they are the second most valuable company in the world.
They are also one of the most profitable large companies in the world.
Seems to me that Apple is already the "largest electronic company ever" (whatever that means to you.)
post #45 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Relative market share is stagnating. Nokia also sells more every quarter than the last. In unit sales they had a blow out year. Nokia are declining in market share.

Less profit to developers, less apps.... Its not as if this is a difficult thing to understand..

You completely miss the point - If the marketshare doesn't represent profitability for developers THEN there are less apps. If you don't make revenue off your apps - it doesn't matter how many devices the OS is installed on.
post #46 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

So, if you were in charge of a currency, you'd devalue it?

I'll say again, prices are set by markets not by CFOs.

The reason Dell and HP have pitifully small profitability numbers is not because they are generous.

It's because they are unable to add value.

C.

Yes I would devalue it if I was an export economy. Prices are obviously set by CFO's. The market for any product is along the supply and demand curve. That price is too high which is why Apple's market share is stagnating.

Apple can continue to grow unit sales and stagnate in the market. What happens when the market matures?

If the market matures and Apple are 10% of the market, or less, then the only way to increase unit sales is to reduce prices. However if Android is the de-facto standard then that may not work, and probably will not work because the 60+% ( or more if Nokia goes Android) of people on other phones will have no incentive to jump ship as they will have a software lockin, and most apps would be developed first ( or at all ) for Android.

Time to reduce prices is now. Or become beleaguered once again.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #47 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

Perhaps you have just awoken from a deep sleep?
measured by revenue Apple is only the 110th "largest" company in the world.
But guess what? By market capitalization they are the second most valuable company in the world.
They are also one of the most profitable large companies in the world.
Seems to me that Apple is already the "largest electronic company ever" (whatever that means to you.)

Good man. That has no bearing on my arguments on market share, or the future direction of Apple. I thought I deflected this potential argument when I said they were amongst the most profitable computer manufacturers in the early 90's, a few years before they almost went bankrupt.

( I wonder if Nokia forums are full of denial on the decline in Market share for Nokia? )
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #48 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore View Post

You completely miss the point - If the marketshare doesn't represent profitability for developers THEN there are less apps. If you don't make revenue off your apps - it doesn't matter how many devices the OS is installed on.

What does that even mean? Are you saying that per-device revenue for Android phones is less than for iOS phones? If so that is true of software on the Mac VS Windows. Mac users buy more stuff. That stat is overwhelmed by the 5% market share.

The installed base for iOS is still quite high, and thus problems with apps and the platform are a year away. But it will happen. Present trends continue.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #49 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

That is a total bullshit statement. Apple doesn't use anything that is any higher quality them most other companies.

I have no issue if people want to say they spend extra for Apple products because they like the experience, ecosystem or that they simply think Apple products are cool.

Its total bullshit to say they last longer or are somehow higher quality. You can go down the list of OEM's that Apple uses and it isn't any different then anyone else.

I know many people with Acer laptops that are just as old as my MBP and working just fine.

I call bullshit on your bullshit. I bought an HP laptop for my daughter. It broke down so much best buy gave us a new one. That one lasted 13 months. I said screw this, and bought a MacBook. Year and a half later still waiting for the first repair.
post #50 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Yes I would devalue it if I was an export economy. Prices are obviously set by CFO's.

No. Utterly wrong.
A CFO who sets a price too high for the market, will face diminished profits as sales diminish.
A CFO who sets the price too low, will secure more sales, but profits will diminish due to the lower profit per unit.

He's therefore obliged to set a price which is fit for the market.

In other words, the market sets the price.

The reason Apple's profitability is so out of step with other electronics companies, is that its value-add is out of step with rest of the industry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

The market for any product is along the supply and demand curve. That price is too high which is why Apple's market share is declining.

Apple's volume is increasing. And it's profit is increasing. And its share of industry profits is increasing. Just look at the bottom graph showing phone profit share.



So while other companies scramble for for market share. Their profits are squeezed, year on year in a race to the bottom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Apple can continue to grow unit sales and stagnate in the market. What happens when the market matures?

The thing about this industry is that it is always changing and developing.
If Apple ONLY sold music playing iPods, then it would be facing a mature market - it would have to reduce prices. And you know what? It has.

But since Apple started selling iPods, it has introduced two new product categories. Categories which are not mature and have massive growth potential.

As long as Apple continues to innovate, it does not have to worry about maturity.

C.
post #51 of 108
"They charge too much" "They're gouging!" "Apple's ripping us off!"

Zzzzzz.

It's called Value.

Never ONCE have I bought an Apple product and felt ripped off.

I bought my dad an iPad for xmas (most I've ever spent on him). Seeing a guy who could barely use a mouse doing email, surfing the web, using netflix, playing games with my mom, using google maps, showing friends his photos and doing regular One to One lessons (ie back to school) at 68 years old = almost priceless.

If the profits made from my purchase go into more R&D for future products- I'm proud to have supported such a crackin' company. We BOTH win.
post #52 of 108
The previous story on market share refered to android. The story on profitability does not have android mentioned even once. When it comes to market share, they are all android phones, but when it comes to profitability, they break it down to handset maker. It would be interesting to see what google actually generates from these phones.

The main reason apple is so profitable is because they don't subscribe to the theory of having to compete on price. They don't give away their software, and they don't have 2 for 1 sales. This is why they will dominate the Pad market for years to come. At best the other companies might be able to produce a product that is equal, but they won't be able to sell one cheaper.

As far as apple charging too much, they aim for a 40% gross margin. When you sell 50 million phones a year, the result will be a lot of profit. Why would they lower their price? Investors want to see a return. Profits are not only looked at as an absolute ($) but as a percentage. Their margins have remained fairly consistent over the years.

In real life, more often than not, you get what you pay for.
post #53 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

That is a total bullshit statement. Apple doesn't use anything that is any higher quality them most other companies.


Its total bullshit to say they last longer or are somehow higher quality.

So a one piece aluminum laptop body is the same quality as a multiple piece plastic laptop body?

Maybe you should consider wearing a helmet the next time you get on that skateboard.
post #54 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Sure they start from a better place this time, but <10% is on the cards.

Apple can afford to sacrifice margin for volume - thats the story of growing to be one of the biggest electronic companies ever - and they have to. And they have to now. This year.

The high profit strategy has some benefits for them because they can now afford very expensive exclusive deals with hardware manufacturers that cost billions. I do see a strong need for them to have a budget iPhone though because the Android phones are now starting at a very low price and they are decent quality and we are already seeing Google surpass Symbian now. I don't think developers will desert Apple as they have a better marketplace and still over 100 million users but it's cause for concern.

I think the best strategy for them right now is to have an iPod Touch model that has an add-on phone component. Let the carriers fight to the bottom on their own, Apple can just sell the iPod and make their profit. There's no way that Android devices would compete with a $300 iPod as it can be fully subsidised at $25 per month on a 12 month contract.
post #55 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

So what you are saying then is the Macbook because it doesn't have an Alu body is shit?

Really? Is that what you got out of my comment?
post #56 of 108
deleted
post #57 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

No. Utterly wrong.
A CFO who sets a price too high for the market, will face diminished profits as sales diminish.
A CFO who sets the price too low, will secure more sales, but profits will diminish due to the lower profit per unit.

A CFO who sets the price too high will see the market share decline, or stagnate. Both are indications of what the market think. An early adopters market is less price sensitive than a mature market. Which is where we are.

Quote:
He's therefore obliged to set a price which is fit for the market.

He is not obliged to anything. He could be milking margin at the expense of growth. Or lowering prices to grow market share which is essential in a software platform ( analogies with cars are thus misleading). At the moment Apple are doing the former - hence their record profits - although I admit there are supply constraints.


Quote:
Apple's volume is increasing. And it's profit is increasing. And its share of industry profits is increasing. Just look at the bottom graph showing phone profit share.

Nokia's volume is increasing. Here are the stats.

For the year though, Nokia remains the world's largest smartphone maker by both volume and sales, having sold 100m, up 48% on 2009, for total sales of €14.7bn.



That's right. Up 48%. Freakin' amazing, right?

Nevertheless Nokia's market share is declining. As for Apple Market share is declining in the US, and stagnant over the world.

There may be some gains from Verizon and China Mobile in 1H 2011, but that re-inforces my point that they need to grow market share. in any way possible.

Nobody is suggesting a race to the bottom, just covering most of the price points. Let ZTE sell what it sells at it's ( probably unsustainable) price point. Go above that. The iPod touch - with the same internals as the iPhone 4, and a retina type display - sells at about $200. An iPhone at that cost would be free on most contracts.

All Apple have to do is

1) Keep the 3GS ( adding CDMA) and lower the sticker price by $100 . Lower the iP4 by $100. Keep the iP5 as the high end device. That maintains the brand.
2) Keep the iPad 1 and lower it's sticker price by $100. iPad2 same price as last year, component supply willing.

I would actually be surprised if they didnt do this. Nevertheless there has never been such a change in any Market so fast. A seismic change. The Android increase last year to this. What is it? 650%.

If Apple were getting the same revenue growth and the same profits in any other era, it would be amazing. Last year, it wasn't so amazing. Same with Nokia. 48% YOY. Amazing! Just not in 2010.

So Apple need to up their game. AS a single company they are doing good - the best. Tributes all round. Handshakes. Big Hugs. Huggie wuggies.

As a platform, not so well.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #58 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

'A fool and his money are soon parted'

It all depends on your point of view.

I own a few Apple products, but none of them run iOS. I perceive them to be too expensive and lacking in value, compared to alternative products.

I think the principle reason Apple has gotten away with charging so much for the iPhone, is that for most buyers, the true cost of the device is buried in a 'plan' and since it is effectively paid for in installments, the true cost is easier to bare.

There was a nice example in another thread a few days ago where some bright Aussie was proudly declaring that in Oz you can get a IP4 for 'free'. He and others really believe they are getting a $600-700 device for free when the total cost of their plan is $2000 or so over two years.

I got my iPhone 4 for free on a $A59 plan which works out at $1416 over two years, of course you are basing your assumption on the rather strange notion that one would purchase a smartphone without actually using it i.e. paying for calls and data.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #59 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

That is a total bullshit statement. Apple doesn't use anything that is any higher quality them most other companies.

I have no issue if people want to say they spend extra for Apple products because they like the experience, ecosystem or that they simply think Apple products are cool.

Its total bullshit to say they last longer or are somehow higher quality. You can go down the list of OEM's that Apple uses and it isn't any different then anyone else.

I know many people with Acer laptops that are just as old as my MBP and working just fine.


I was not really saying anything about the parts they were using, but I can contest the oldest mac I still use us 10 yrs old and I have one that is 6 and 5 and 3 and 3 month old. Macs do last longer and I am not basing that on my experience I am basing it on my direct knowledge of all the testing apple does and the fact they required suppliers to give them the best quality parts.

Do not kid yourself into thinking that all computer companies get the exact same part, totally not true. Those customer who have higher quality requirements get the better parts and those who do not care get what is left over. I can also tell you Apple does not pay the lowest price for parts like Dell and Acer and it has nothing to do with volume is because Dell forgoes quality over prices, they rather have the lower price over anything else.

Because applie is willing to not pay the lowest price, they can demand the higher quality products. Plus the know how to test and design such they do not use parts in a why that would cause them to fail earlier in life.
post #60 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

1) Keep the 3GS ( adding CDMA) and lower the sticker price by $100.

NEVER going to happen. They already completely rebuilt the iPhone 4 and they'll be building the iPhone 5. And how can they lower the price of the 3GS by $100 when it's already $49?

Quote:
2) Keep the iPad 1 and lower its sticker price by $100. iPad2 same price as last year, component supply willing.

This I believe wholeheartedly.
post #61 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

He is not obliged to anything.

Of course he is. He's obliged to maximise overall profits. Which requires picking the precise price that maximises that. The price set by the market.
Anything else would be a criminal abandonment of what shareholders demand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Nevertheless Nokia's market share is declining.

Nokia has no problems with volume. It's got volume coming out of its wazoo.
Nokia's problem is that they only make 8 Euros per handset.

Why? - Because they are incapable of adding value.

C.
post #62 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

NEVER going to happen. They already completely rebuilt the iPhone 4 and they'll be building the iPhone 5. And how can they lower the price of the 3GS by $100 when it's already $49?

Its $49 on a contract. Sticker price is much higher. Also that price reduction does not apply worldwide and I mean this : reduce the worldwide price of the 3GS from last June's sticker price by $100 ( or $50 in the US). That would make the 3GS free on the standard contract.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #63 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by justbobf View Post

So, sounds like Apple is overcharging, just a bit, doesn't it?

Overcharging would most likely be indicated by demand not keeping up with supply. Since demand and supply appear to be in balance, I would say that the iPhone is priced right.
post #64 of 108
deleted
post #65 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Of course he is. He's obliged to maximise overall profits. Which requires picking the precise price that maximises that. The price set by the market.
Anything else would be a criminal abandonment of what shareholders demand.



Nokia has no problems with volume. It's got volume coming out of its wazoo.
Nokia's problem is that they only make 8 Euros per handset.

Why? - Because they are incapable of adding value.

C.

The added value is in your head. You just repeat it like a mantra. Its an excuse for justifying lower market share and higher prices.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #66 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

The added value is in your head. You just repeat it like a mantra. Its an excuse for justifying lower market share and higher prices.

So go support a company with higher marketshare and lower prices.

Apple's doing just fine as they are and they don't give a crap about anyone else's business model.
post #67 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

The added value is in your head. You just repeat it like a mantra. Its an excuse for justifying lower market share and higher prices.

Oh right. This one.

I think you should suggest to Nokia, that they could emulate Apples success by increasing prices.
Let's see how that works out eh?

C.
post #68 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

Overcharging would most likely be indicated by demand not keeping up with supply. Since deamand and supply appear to be n balance, I would say that the iPhone is priced right.

sigh. Higher prices reduce demand. Lower prices stimulate demand. At any price point demand can equal supply. If they had originally priced the iPhone at $2000 ( sticker) they would have some demand, and would have matched supply by producing less. Or ( since they started at zero) not ramping up production to the levels they now have ramped up to.

a company may want to keep margins high and ( thus) market share low to protect it's brand, or make higher profits from lower sales. Thats fine and indeed successful for cars. And other devices.

For a company which is competing not just as a device maker but an OS platform it isn't good enough.

Apple is a very successful mobile phone manufacturer, the platform is beginning to stagnate.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #69 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Oh right. This one.

I think you should suggest to Nokia, that they could emulate Apples success by increasing prices.
Let's see how that works out eh?

C.

I am advocating reducing prices. Keep up.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #70 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So go support a company with higher marketshare and lower prices.

Apple's doing just fine as they are and they don't give a crap about anyone else's business model.

Well they sure didnt in the 90's. and look where that got them.

The model I am suggesting for them is the model they follow in the Mp3 market. Control the low end - not the very lowest but low enough - and the high end. Amortise margins over the entire range, so the higher end models subsidise the lower end.

It may be too late in the phone market for that, but not in tablets.

Hard to see what is so controversial about this. If Apple were just margin whores they would never have any low end model, and the 3GS would be discontinued now. I am merely suggesting that they add a lower end price point to the phone ( and not discontinue until next year), and add a lower entry level to iPad line by not discontinuing the iPAd 1. That ones a certainty.

When they do this they are trading some margin for marketshare.

However, there is a type of Apple fan who likes his niche and - so to answer the first point ( really an ad hominem) - I wont "support" another company because I prefer iOS.

I will reluctantly, however, move to Android if there is better and more software for it.

I am hoping they avoid that by reducing margins.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #71 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

I am advocating reducing prices. Keep up.

No, You suggested that Apple's added value was a some kind of illusion.

Your comical notion is that Apple could become more profitable, by cutting prices and increasing volume. (Even though it's production capacity has been maxed since the launch of the iPhone.)

You think that if Apple cut prices enough, it could sell as many units as the mighty Nokia. What a great strategy that would be. This is Nokia we are talking about. The company that is on track to start making a loss in 2011.

Nokia buys $150 worth of components and sells it for $160.
Apple buys $240 worth of components and sells it for $500. That's the definition of value added.

But I am pleased that in you, Nokia could have found itself a new CEO. You could show them the error of their ways. They could get themselves out of this unfolding financial disaster, and mirror the miracle of Apple, if only they charged twice as much.

Please, you should suggest it to them.

C.
post #72 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

If it doesnt happen they will just repeat the mistakes of history. Apparently plenty of Apple fans want them in that niche. Fair enough. These things are vicious circles, however. Less market share, less apps. Less apps, less market share. Its not as if this is a difficult thing to understand.

And then, eventually, profit drops.

Apple have a potential market share at a certain price point, and obviously a larger one at a lower price point. Maintaining market share in a rapidly growing market means lots of profit. It is when the market itself it saturated that you have to grow market share to grow unit sales.

And that larger share likely requires increased support costs even as you lower your own margins. When the smartphone market is saturated (in probably 3 to 4 years), Apple will need to decide on a strategy to deal with this issue.

As for apps being tied to marketshare, that is only partially true. Any reasonable developer will also be looking at profit potential - addressing a market with 80% share but poor software revenues is not an attractive opportunity.
post #73 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Well they sure didnt in the 90's. and look where that got them.

Oh, no! You're right! Apple's exactly the same company that it was in the 90s and has exactly the same product matrix!



Quote:
When they do this they are trading some margin for marketshare.

But they don't CARE.
post #74 of 108
Ask a mobile developer.

And they'll tell you that an app on the iOS platform generates about five times the revenue of the next best platform.


C.
post #75 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Good man. That has no bearing on my arguments on market share, or the future direction of Apple. I thought I deflected this potential argument when I said they were amongst the most profitable computer manufacturers in the early 90's, a few years before they almost went bankrupt.

( I wonder if Nokia forums are full of denial on the decline in Market share for Nokia? )

You are clueless
Apple already historically has been able to take most of the available profits with a small share of the market. They've done this in laptops, music players, phones, and now they'll do it with tablets too. Let the Dells, Lenovos, and HTC's fight over Apple's leftovers.
post #76 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

No, You suggested that Apple's added value was a some kind of illusion.

Your comical notion is that Apple could become more profitable, by cutting prices and increasing volume. (Even though it's production capacity has been maxed since the launch of the iPhone.)

You think that if Apple cut prices enough, it could sell as many units as the mighty Nokia. What a great strategy that would be. This is Nokia we are talking about. The company that is on track to start making a loss in 2011.

Nokia buys $150 worth of components and sells it for $160.
Apple buys $240 worth of components and sells it for $500. That's the definition of value added.

But I am pleased that in you, Nokia could have found itself a new CEO. You could show them the error of their ways. They could get themselves out of this unfolding financial disaster, and mirror the miracle of Apple, if only they charged twice as much.

Please, you should suggest it to them.

C.


1) I clearly dont advocate Nokia increasing their prices but Apple reducing their prices by adding an additional low end model this year. This should be a totally uncontroversial demand, you would think. It is something they do already to a more limited extent. I never suggested competing with Nokia in the non-smart phone market where the prices are very low indeed.

That should have gone without saying. Unfortunately, it's a bit kindergarten here.

2) I keep mentioning the fact that Apple sells both phones and iOS as a platform ( tightly coupled) and that they also need to compete as a viable platform. Therefore market share needs to be maintained or increased. You are dealing with that argument - my main argument - by ignoring it.

I said that the higher margins lower market-share policy works for cars. It is a valid strategy for some kinds of produce.

There is no point, therefore, pointing to Apple's present day profit - which we are all aware of - as a success if they platform is stagnating. I know they are doing well as a single company, but not so well as a platform ( iOS) in smart phone market share. Having no answer to this you retreat to the only argument you have - their profit is big, innit. Never said it wasnt. You are not the CEO, innit? Never said I was.

3) The 90's argument has also passed you by.

And with that I unsubscribe, since I have made my argument, and you are not capable of taking it onboard.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #77 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

And that larger share likely requires increased support costs even as you lower your own margins. When the smartphone market is saturated (in probably 3 to 4 years), Apple will need to decide on a strategy to deal with this issue.

Far too late.

Quote:
As for apps being tied to marketshare, that is only partially true. Any reasonable developer will also be looking at profit potential - addressing a market with 80% share but poor software revenues is not an attractive opportunity.

Yeah? The revenues would clearly have to be 4 times larger on the iPhone to justify the investment.

Apps are moving out of the bedroom. The decision will not be made by "developers" but by the people who hire developers. If they see 80%, they will spend money on designers and developers for that 80%.

In any case I see we have accepted 80% market share for the competition. Back to our happy clappy niche. Feeling special at the 20% level or less. Just bog all software.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #78 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stourque View Post

I call bullshit on your bullshit. I bought an HP laptop for my daughter. It broke down so much best buy gave us a new one. That one lasted 13 months. I said screw this, and bought a MacBook. Year and a half later still waiting for the first repair.

Indeed. Quality is not about who assembles the product. It's much more about how it's been designed and the standards and quality assurance execution and enforcement all along the way.
post #79 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

That is a total bullshit statement. Apple doesn't use anything that is any higher quality them most other companies.

I have no issue if people want to say they spend extra for Apple products because they like the experience, ecosystem or that they simply think Apple products are cool.

Its total bullshit to say they last longer or are somehow higher quality. You can go down the list of OEM's that Apple uses and it isn't any different then anyone else.

I know many people with Acer laptops that are just as old as my MBP and working just fine.

...And every product made with steel contains iron ore off the same planet. Surely there is no way steel from company "A" could ever be better than steel from company "B", because the iron ore comes from the same mine.


Apple does mostly use the same suppliers and assemblers, but in case you were unaware, there are varying quality differences that come from the same factories and assembly lines. Apple pays more to make sure the parts they get are at the higher end of that quality spectrum.

Apple also puts a lot of money into working with companies to design and produce different manufacturing techniques, using different materials, etc. Apple works with these companies to guarantee the part being manufactured is up to Apple's specs and needs.

They do not buy predesigned, pre-engineered components and assemble them in a box to make a product as you seem to suggest.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #80 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

That is a total bullshit statement. Apple doesn't use anything that is any higher quality them most other companies.

I have no issue if people want to say they spend extra for Apple products because they like the experience, ecosystem or that they simply think Apple products are cool.

Its total bullshit to say they last longer or are somehow higher quality. You can go down the list of OEM's that Apple uses and it isn't any different then anyone else.

I know many people with Acer laptops that are just as old as my MBP and working just fine.

Its not bullshit. Apple isnt even the best way example of looking at quality Its easier to look at Dell or HP to see how quality can affect the price. You can find machines with basically the same performance that have wildly different costs due to construction, drivers and the quality of the components, even though they seem identical to other components when looking at a simple spec list.

Since Apple was brought up Ill use them since I dont have the time or interest in doing an extensive cross-compartive of Dell or HP products.

Displays
Apple doesnt use the highest PPI that can be found on the market today, but when they do offer are brighter backlights and higher quality TN TFT panels compared to their competition.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3991/a...nch-reviewed/5 Trackpad
Most notebooks use a trackpad, but that doesnt make them equal. Apples trackpad is more sensitive and more accurate than any Ive seen on notebooks. Simply having that word on a checklist doesnt make them equal. Apple use of glass over the trackpad keeps it feeling and looking good after excessive use.

On top of that, they have drivers that work. This is an area where many vendors (and users) completely ignore the concept of quality. Take the HP Envys. They employed the huge, multi-touch trackpad but it was repeatedly reviewed as unusable, that youd have to use an external mouse to feasibly use the machine. Thats crazy, thats not quality! I assume they made this somewhat better in future updates, but this was a shipping model with a complete lack of quality in the trackpad drivers. I dont recall Apple having that issue with their first multi-touch trackpads.

OS
AnandTech has also repeatedly tested machines for their usage on a single charge. Apples products win. Even on the Macs with Bootcamp running Mac OS X bests Windows. How is this not a sign of quality?

Customer Service
I never feel like Im taking a risk when buying an Apple product. Ill even spend a little extra in their stores for 3rd-party products because I know if there is an issue all CE will be fualty for someone, somewhere they will deal with it in a way I appreciate. They dont even care if you bought it online or at a different B&M store, which is something Ive had issue with in the past with other large retail chains. I think that is important a sign of quality.

Processors
This one isnt verifiable (and Im only throwing it in there because I think its interesting): there are many deep into the tech world that have suspected that Apple gets premium components within batches. Even items that are made on an assembly line and of the same model number are not the same. With something as complex as microprocessors its possible that power consumption, while still within spec, could be at the high-end. Its suspected that Apple is buying the product that is consuming less power. Again, this cant be verified, its only been speculated, but if true its another aspect of quality that wont be noticed when looking at a model number.

Conclusion
How is this possible if Apple isnt focusing on the quality of their products?

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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's 4% mobile market share rakes in over half the industry's profit