or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple snags 50% of handset industry profits ahead of first 100M iPhone year
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple snags 50% of handset industry profits ahead of first 100M iPhone year

post #1 of 50
Thread Starter 
In less than four years, Apple went from not making a dime on handset sales to commanding approximately half of the industry's profits, and is now poised to set the bar even higher by shipping 100 million iPhones over a 12-month span, financial experts say.

Although smartphones running Google's Android OS continue to gain share of total smartphone units sold, when it comes to profits, Apple remains the undisputed king, raking in roughy 50% of the entire handset industry's net earnings during the first quarter of 2011, according to Canaccord Genuity analyst T. Michael Walkley.

"Our [June] checks indicated continued strong sales of the iPhone 4, as it remained by far the top-selling smartphone at AT&T and Verizon despite the continued popularity of 4G smartphones and several new high-end Android smartphones," he said.

At Verizon Wireless in particular, Walkley said his checks indicated the iPhone 4 was the #1 selling smartphone during June despite six new high-end Android smartphones from OEMs such as HTC (Thunderbolt LTE, Incredible 2), Motorola Mobility (Droid X2), Samsung (Droid Charge - LTE), Sony Ericsson (Play), and LG (Revolution LTE) launching in the last couple months.

"Further, with Verizon not allowing subsidies to customers that are still under a two-year contract, we anticipate steady upgrades by Verizon customers to the iPhone will continue over the next several quarters," he said. "As a result, we believe the iPhone will remain the top- selling smartphone at Verizon throughout 2011."

That said, Walkley is forecasting Apple's share of smartphone unit sales to actually fall from an estimated 16.0% in 2010 to just 15.2% by the end of 2012. However, as consumers continue to trend towards smartphones, that 15.2% will equate to just over 100 million units, or roughly 25 million iPhones per quarter.

During the same period, the analyst estimates that smartphones running Android will see their share of the market soar from an estimated 22.6% to a market dominating 50%, jumping from 67.2 million units to 329 million units.



Still, Apple's iOS installed base is believed to be the key differentiator for Apple, as it runs on the iPad and iPod touch in addition to iPhones. As such, Walkley is modeling the iOS base to rise rapidly from 250 million devices in 2011 to 415 million by the end of 2012, easily outmatching Android to remain the industry's leading mobile operating system.

The analyst noted that his models assume Apple will not launch a lower-tier iPhone during 2012. Instead, he believes Apple will ship a modest mix of older iPhone versions such as the 3GS and iPhone 4 in order to create a more tiered portfolio. And even with those yesteryear designs, he still sees the company achieving its well-above-average gross margins despite the sub $400 average selling price the models will generate.



However, should Apple decide to introduce a new lower-tiered iPhone, Walkley's forward-looking market share estimates for the company could prove conservative.

"Perhaps the strong unit market share growth for Android could result in Apple introducing a broader portfolio of iPhones in order to better compete in more price sensitive emerging markets," he said.

Walkley reiterated his Buy rating on shares of the iPhone maker, raising his price target from $485 to $500 per share.
post #2 of 50
Just curious. . . Do all these handset manufacturers announce their net profits from mobile phones, Apple included? I've never seen them, so I'm assuming the "analysts" are simply making a semi-educated guess? I'm not sure.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #3 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Just curious. . . Do all these handset manufacturers announce their net profits from mobile phones, Apple included? I've never seen them, so I'm assuming the "analysts" are simply making a semi-educated guess? I'm not sure.

I couldn't say for sure whether they are educated or semi-educated guesses.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #4 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

I couldn't say for sure whether they are educated or semi-educated guesses.

It seems like some analyst's are only semi-educated going by their conclusions.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #5 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

In less than four years, Apple went from not making a dime on handset sales to commanding approximately half of the industry's profits, and is now poised to set the bar even higher by shipping 100 million iPhones over a 12-month span, financial experts say.

I know that it's the nature of a capitalist company to maximize profits, but -- since Apple is sitting on a hoard of cash, and apparently winning the handset profit race by a huge margin, why not slash prices on the iPhone line and really put the competition against the ropes?

Again, I'm not saying Apple *shouldn't* make money where it can. But if it could slash iPhone prices, still make some profit, and - say - get RIM out of the game, or seize back a big chunk of the mindless masses who're buying Android phones - wouldn't that be a good thing? Especially in the long term?
post #6 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sierrajeff View Post

I know that it's the nature of a capitalist company to maximize profits, but -- since Apple is sitting on a hoard of cash, and apparently winning the handset profit race by a huge margin, why not slash prices on the iPhone line and really put the competition against the ropes?

Again, I'm not saying Apple *shouldn't* make money where it can. But if it could slash iPhone prices, still make some profit, and - say - get RIM out of the game, or seize back a big chunk of the mindless masses who're buying Android phones - wouldn't that be a good thing? Especially in the long term?

I'm gonna say "yes".

Once you get an iPhone and make App and music purchases, you are less likely to leave the fold for another platform.
post #7 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sierrajeff View Post

I know that it's the nature of a capitalist company to maximize profits, but -- since Apple is sitting on a hoard of cash, and apparently winning the handset profit race by a huge margin, why not slash prices on the iPhone line and really put the competition against the ropes?

Again, I'm not saying Apple *shouldn't* make money where it can. But if it could slash iPhone prices, still make some profit, and - say - get RIM out of the game, or seize back a big chunk of the mindless masses who're buying Android phones - wouldn't that be a good thing? Especially in the long term?

Squeezing out competitors by lowering costs is not Apple's business model.

That was Acer's business model and earlier this year they admitted it was the wrong business model and that they weren't increasing shareholder value by shipping a bunch of cheap hardware.

Apple eats cake and lets the competition fight over the crumbs.
post #8 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sierrajeff View Post

I know that it's the nature of a capitalist company to maximize profits, but -- since Apple is sitting on a hoard of cash, and apparently winning the handset profit race by a huge margin, why not slash prices on the iPhone line and really put the competition against the ropes?

Again, I'm not saying Apple *shouldn't* make money where it can. But if it could slash iPhone prices, still make some profit, and - say - get RIM out of the game, or seize back a big chunk of the mindless masses who're buying Android phones - wouldn't that be a good thing? Especially in the long term?

They don't need to. The success of the iPhone clearly points to them having the correct price point. They are not going to go trawling the bottom of the barrel to compete with Android. They don't have to, and I'm glad they are not doing that.

They are using their hoard of cash to insulate themselves from economic shifts, and more importantly using it as a hedge to lock down component prices and buy companies / patents. They command 1st-shot of just about anything they want. They are in a fantastic position to be in.
post #9 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sierrajeff View Post

I know that it's the nature of a capitalist company to maximize profits, but -- since Apple is sitting on a hoard of cash, and apparently winning the handset profit race by a huge margin, why not slash prices on the iPhone line and really put the competition against the ropes?

Again, I'm not saying Apple *shouldn't* make money where it can. But if it could slash iPhone prices, still make some profit, and - say - get RIM out of the game, or seize back a big chunk of the mindless masses who're buying Android phones - wouldn't that be a good thing? Especially in the long term?

Terrible idea. Akin to saying Maserati should make cheap cars to compete with ford or GM. Apple will never be a monopoly, even if they give there phones away for free for the next two years. So why dilute your earnings over a larger market share?

Selling premium products for premium prices is Apple's value proposition to customers. When companies try to be all things to all people they are not long for this world.
post #10 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sierrajeff View Post

Which is better - profits, or crushing competition?

Easy! Profits.

I wonder why you think Apple or any for-profit company would want o reduce their profits to simply have more share of a market.
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 #11 of 50
Someone asked me the other day how Apple was able to make such killer profits on their devices, when everyone else was racing to the bottom and losing margin.

A couple of the points I brought up have already been touched on above - Apple leverages it's profitability to be able to subsidize manufacturing of its advanced parts under very attractive terms and conditions, which are then continued once exclusivity terms have been met, with preferred customer pricing of those same components as they are mainstreamed and available to the competition.

And in addition to the cash insulator they have in their back pockets, they also have very conservative profit thresholds for their devices as well - requiring few devices sold before they turn a profit. By playing that conservative they see the huge profit margins now being reported based on fewer sales - so that when a device goes popular it generates a deeper profit delivery.

It is the perfect model for being innovative - schedule your pricing around selling fewer items, so that you see profits earlier rather than later - even if the device only does modestly well (1st gen Apple TV) it returns some profit regardless, and use the profits to absorb any market softness.
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #12 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post

Someone asked me the other day how Apple was able to make such killer profits on their devices, when everyone else was racing to the bottom and losing margin.

A couple of the points I brought up have already been touched on above - Apple leverages it's profitability to be able to subsidize manufacturing of its advanced parts under very attractive terms and conditions, which are then continued once exclusivity terms have been met, with preferred customer pricing of those same components as they are mainstreamed and available to the competition.

And in addition to the cash insulator they have in their back pockets, they also have very conservative profit thresholds for their devices as well - requiring few devices sold before they turn a profit. By playing that conservative they see the huge profit margins now being reported based on fewer sales - so that when a device goes popular it generates a deeper profit delivery.

It is the perfect model for being innovative - schedule your pricing around selling fewer items, so that you see profits earlier rather than later - even if the device only does modestly well (1st gen Apple TV) it returns some profit regardless, and use the profits to absorb any market softness.

We can add to low R&D costs do to efficiency. We can see this in their correlation between OS X flavours Mac OS and iOS, and the use of the same basic HW across the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad. All these things quickly bring them into the black so when you couple that with excessive unit sales you get an amazing profit margin even whilst being on par (or even cheaper) than the competition for a comparable product.
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 #13 of 50
I think the biggest reason is that a bunch of MBA's don't run the place.
post #14 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sierrajeff View Post

I know that it's the nature of a capitalist company to maximize profits, but -- since Apple is sitting on a hoard of cash, and apparently winning the handset profit race by a huge margin, why not slash prices on the iPhone line and really put the competition against the ropes?

Again, I'm not saying Apple *shouldn't* make money where it can. But if it could slash iPhone prices, still make some profit, and - say - get RIM out of the game, or seize back a big chunk of the mindless masses who're buying Android phones - wouldn't that be a good thing? Especially in the long term?

I think Apple would do this, BUT, they can barely supply enough iPhones at the moment as is. It is really hard to imagine them being able to supply the massive demand for iPhones they will see if they drop prices. Once Apple has supply in order, I expect iPhone prices to drop.
post #15 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhende7 View Post

Terrible idea. Akin to saying Maserati should make cheap cars to compete with ford or GM. Apple will never be a monopoly, even if they give there phones away for free for the next two years. So why dilute your earnings over a larger market share?

Selling premium products for premium prices is Apple's value proposition to customers. When companies try to be all things to all people they are not long for this world.

Even allowing for the dread car analogy I think Maserati vs cheap GM cars is off the mark.

Apple isn't making small market share exotica. They're not even making medium market share high end. They're making solidly competitive, beautifully engineered devices with best in the business user experiences which sells at mass market levels.

It's like selling a Lexus for Honda money while declining to compete at all in the entry level hatchback market. All things being equal a lot of people are going to go for the relatively cheap Lexus, but that still leaves a lot of room to sell lots and lots of much cheaper Kias, because for a lot of people price comes first. That does not mean Apple is likely to build a Kia like model to try and pick up those customers.

And of course the entire thing falls apart due to carrier subsidies, and I apologize for elaborating on a car analogy. Let's apply it to the iPad, which drives the whole cost structure even further down market while maintaining that sense of luxury quality and leaves very little room for entry level anything that doesn't fatally compromise key factors.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #16 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

We can add to low R&D costs do to efficiency. We can see this in their correlation between OS X flavours Mac OS and iOS, and the use of the same basic HW across the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad. All these things quickly bring them into the black so when you couple that with excessive unit sales you get an amazing profit margin even whilst being on par (or even cheaper) than the competition for a comparable product.

AppleTV2 is a perfect example of this. It is nothing but an iPod touch without a display, and a bunch of other unneeded sensors, and components. Barely any R&D required (a little to get a new UI, and a new enclosure) and also gives them pricing power, since they are now buying more of the same chips.
post #17 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssls6 View Post

I think the biggest reason is that a bunch of MBA's don't run the place.

Cook has an MBA from Duke University.

And, Ron Johnson (the about-to-depart retail store genius) an MBA from Harvard, and Peter Oppemheimer from Univ of Santa Clara.
post #18 of 50
But.... but.... Android has a bigger market share....!

/sarcasm
post #19 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sierrajeff View Post

I know that it's the nature of a capitalist company to maximize profits, but -- since Apple is sitting on a hoard of cash, and apparently winning the handset profit race by a huge margin, why not slash prices on the iPhone line and really put the competition against the ropes?

Again, I'm not saying Apple *shouldn't* make money where it can. But if it could slash iPhone prices, still make some profit, and - say - get RIM out of the game, or seize back a big chunk of the mindless masses who're buying Android phones - wouldn't that be a good thing? Especially in the long term?

What you suggest would only make sense if Apple's iPhone was much more expensive than the equivalent competition and Apple's sales volume was low.
In fact the iPhone is only a modest amount more expensive than the equivalent others. I would expect the carriers would still retain a difference in price, because Apple already has enough control of the smart phone market. The usage cost of smart phones, which is the same, covers most of the phone's cost.
As for Rim, not nice to hit them when they are down and still dropping. They did it to themselves by not keeping up to date and then coming out with a confusing mix of BB models.
post #20 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Cook has an MBA from Duke University.

And, Ron Johnson (the about-to-depart retail store genius) an MBA from Harvard, and Peter Oppemheimer from Univ of Santa Clara.

... and Steve Jobs from the School of Hard Knocks...
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #21 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Cook has an MBA from Duke University.

And, Ron Johnson (the about-to-depart retail store genius) an MBA from Harvard, and Peter Oppemheimer from Univ of Santa Clara.

And Gil Amelio has a bachelors, masters, and PhD in physics from the Georgia Institute of Technology.

That sound? Me sinking your battleship.
post #22 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Cook has an MBA from Duke University.

And, Ron Johnson (the about-to-depart retail store genius) an MBA from Harvard, and Peter Oppemheimer from Univ of Santa Clara.

I bet Steve Jobs has a MBA considering how light and portable they are.
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 #23 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I bet Steve Jobs has a MBA considering how light and portable they are.

Wish the Cambridge Apple Store was in Harvard Square
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #24 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I bet Steve Jobs has a MBA considering how light and portable they are.

http://books.google.com/books?id=O1y...urce=gbs_gdata

You mean this?
post #25 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post

And Gil Amelio has a bachelors, masters, and PhD in physics from the Georgia Institute of Technology.

That sound? Me sinking your battleship.

GIl Amelio brought Steve back, so he's hardly the anti-Steve. That would be Michael Spindler or John Sculley.
post #26 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhende7 View Post

Selling premium products for premium prices is Apple's value proposition to customers. When companies try to be all things to all people they are not long for this world.

Not in iPods. There Apple discovered they could sell in every segment with high margins, the key is product differentiation.
post #27 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Even allowing for the dread car analogy I think Maserati vs cheap GM cars is off the mark.

Apple isn't making small market share exotica. They're not even making medium market share high end. They're making solidly competitive, beautifully engineered devices with best in the business user experiences which sells at mass market levels.

It's like selling a Lexus for Honda money while declining to compete at all in the entry level hatchback market. All things being equal a lot of people are going to go for the relatively cheap Lexus, but that still leaves a lot of room to sell lots and lots of much cheaper Kias, because for a lot of people price comes first. That does not mean Apple is likely to build a Kia like model to try and pick up those customers.

And of course the entire thing falls apart due to carrier subsidies, and I apologize for elaborating on a car analogy. Let's apply it to the iPad, which drives the whole cost structure even further down market while maintaining that sense of luxury quality and leaves very little room for entry level anything that doesn't fatally compromise key factors.

Yes the dreaded car analogy. The analogy, however was not intended to liken iPhones to Maserati's in terms of pricing structure, it was more to outline Apples core business model (which is to sell premium products at premium prices). Apple's vision actually aligns fairly nicely with some textbook theories on defining strategic competitive advantage in the marketplace. The first that comes to mind is Porters Product differentiation vs Low cost strategy, and the other is the theory of customer value propositions.

In customer value theory, companies try to maximize on their core competencies to deliver products that drive the perception of value to customers. Companies can focus on product leadership, operational excellence, low cost etc. A company can, at times balance two of these value proposition, but start adding more and balance is compromised.

Essentially these theories try to focus companies efforts so they don't end up claiming the "jack of all trades, but masters of none" moniker while slowing sliding out of market significance - which is all my argument was about.
post #28 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Not in iPods. There Apple discovered they could sell in every segment with high margins, the key is product differentiation.

This is a very valid point, but is more the exception, and not the rule. However, it still aligns with what I said if you think back..

Apple never tried to offer the lowest cost products and compete with the bottom barrel MP3 players, it stuck to it's guns and charged the Apple premium on all it's lines.

The funny thing was, by that time competitors found out this was a viable strategy and started putting out products that could compete, Apple already had 80% of the market share and millions of people locked into the iTunes ecosystem.
post #29 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhende7 View Post

Apple never tried to offer the lowest cost products and compete with the bottom barrel MP3 players, it stuck to it's guns and charged the Apple premium on all it's lines.

Yes, so the key question is will Apple find a way to offer a phone to lower end consumers which is both sufficiently differentiated from the top end to not cannibalize, but high enough build quality to still be an Apple product.

I can't see an obvious way for them to head down-market from the 3GS without sacrificing quality, but then I'm not an Apple exec, they may find a way. I could just about imagine them offering an iPod Nano based feature phone. iPod Voice perhaps?
post #30 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhende7 View Post

Yes the dreaded car analogy. The analogy, however was not intended to liken iPhones to Maserati's in terms of pricing structure, it was more to outline Apples core business model (which is to sell premium products at premium prices). Apple's vision actually aligns fairly nicely with some textbook theories on defining strategic competitive advantage in the marketplace. The first that comes to mind is Porters Product differentiation vs Low cost strategy, and the other is the theory of customer value propositions.

In customer value theory, companies try to maximize on their core competencies to deliver products that drive the perception of value to customers. Companies can focus on product leadership, operational excellence, low cost etc. A company can, at times balance two of these value proposition, but start adding more and balance is compromised.

Essentially these theories try to focus companies efforts so they don't end up claiming the "jack of all trades, but masters of none" moniker while slowing sliding out of market significance - which is all my argument was about.

However my point being that Apple, with its iOS products, isn't actually in the "premium product at premium prices" business any longer. They're arguably in the premium product at mass market prices business, if not (as in the case of the iPad) premium product at industry leading value pricing business.

Which of course accounts for Apple's meteoric rise in revenues and profits over the last few years. Take away carrier subsidies creating artificially low Android pricing and they're consistently selling best in class for the same money as everyone else across the iOS line, and everyone else are having to forgo profits just to match Apple's pricing and stay in the game.

In other words Apple has set a bar for minimum quality and maximum pricing. I've yet to see a non-subsidized device that can equal Apple's quality for any less than Apple's pricing, and Apple is achieving that at higher margins than the competition.

It's a very different world from the old Mac paradigm, and even there, as with the Mac Air, we're seeing aggressively priced products that are sufficiently differentiated from run of the mill PCs to make the case for their value proposition-- that is, the Air is sufficiently different to not come off as a premium priced netbook or laptop but rather a value priced ultraportable with excellent features and build quality.

In short, Apple saw that there was no way to change the price/value equation in the PC world so that made up an entirely new equation within which they are free to establish new norms.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #31 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Just curious. . . Do all these handset manufacturers announce their net profits from mobile phones, Apple included? I've never seen them, so I'm assuming the "analysts" are simply making a semi-educated guess? I'm not sure.

Some of the handset makers only really make handsets, such as Sony-Ericsson Motorola Mobility, and perhaps HTC. Some such as Nokia break out handsets pretty clearly, others only segment by revenue, or just unit sales, and analysts will have to work back a little. Apple for example give us their unit sales in each division and Analysts have to estimate it from there.

It's not an exact science, but one can definitely produce a very solid estimate.
post #32 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sierrajeff View Post

I know that it's the nature of a capitalist company to maximize profits, but -- since Apple is sitting on a hoard of cash, and apparently winning the handset profit race by a huge margin, why not slash prices on the iPhone line and really put the competition against the ropes?

Again, I'm not saying Apple *shouldn't* make money where it can. But if it could slash iPhone prices, still make some profit, and - say - get RIM out of the game, or seize back a big chunk of the mindless masses who're buying Android phones - wouldn't that be a good thing? Especially in the long term?


If AAPL 'slashed' their prices to increase demand do you think they could get their CM's to double in capacity overnight?? I think they are operating about as efficiently and strategically as a company can. I get a kick about all the talk about the number of Android phones vs. iPhones being provisioned....it is really all about the profits.
post #33 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Just curious. . . Do all these handset manufacturers announce their net profits from mobile phones, Apple included? I've never seen them, so I'm assuming the "analysts" are simply making a semi-educated guess? I'm not sure.

Of course they are making an educated guess for most of the companies.

But it's substantially more than "semi".

One, many of the component costs - even adjusting for quantity discounts - are well-known thus providing an estimate of CGS. Allocation of SG&A is not rocket science. Therefore, even allowing for some room for error in the SG&A estimates, the numbers are likely very meaningful, with a fairly high degree of precision.

Two, unlike having to make a forecast of the future (which is inherently more difficult and error-prone), what they're doing here is trying to deconstruct the past - a much easier task for those who spend their lives studying the industry.

The fact that you're "not sure" may not mean much, since it's highly likely that most investors think that these are fairly decent estimates.
post #34 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

We can add to low R&D costs do to efficiency. We can see this in their correlation between OS X flavours Mac OS and iOS, and the use of the same basic HW across the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad. All these things quickly bring them into the black so when you couple that with excessive unit sales you get an amazing profit margin even whilst being on par (or even cheaper) than the competition for a comparable product.

If my inside sources are accurate - the Apple R&D teams are kept small and focussed, and they are combined with other teams during production development to ensure that everything is covered end-to-end for a given device - interesting when you compare it to the siloing that most other comapnies allow to develop in their product space. This is where Apple, as the hardware company that does OS and software, or the OS company that does software and hardware, or the software company that does hardware and OS sharply differentiates against competitors like Moto, HTC or Samsung and is similar to other platform competitors like RIM, (until recently) Nokia, and (soon) HP.

RIM is differentiated because they also supply the server-side BES infrastructure and provide communication services, we all got to witness the arranged marriage of Nokia and Microsoft (and know where that's going to go), and the jury is still out on whether HP has the vision and stubbornness to develop WebOS as a true fully functional and cross-hardware OS, or if they will half-ass it and continue with the dependency on Microsoft.

You compare Apple's approach for example with Microsoft (where I also have inside sources), which is heavily siloed, and which was the source of issues with Vista. It was only once they forced the teams to work together that they were able to clean-up Vista and re-release it as Windows 7 much more successfully. I haven't heard that they have actually embraced de-siloing at Redmond - it sounds mostly like a unique remedy situation and not a lessons-learned. Time will tell.
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #35 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

The fact that you're "not sure" may not mean much, since it's highly likely that most investors think that these are fairly decent estimates.

With most of the profitable tech companies following the general market up/down trends, I'm not sure it even means much to investors (tho it does mean something to me).
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #36 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post

You compare Apple's approach for example with Microsoft (where I also have inside sources), which is heavily siloed, and which was the source of issues with Vista.

You don't need inside sources to know that Microsoft's baronial internal structure is infamous, it's the reason that Office was never released for their previous tablet computing attempts.
post #37 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post

And Gil Amelio has a bachelors, masters, and PhD in physics from the Georgia Institute of Technology.

That sound? Me sinking your battleship.

...hence the fallacy of assuming degree ownership by itself is reason for failure or compromised performance. Gil was not even bad at running Apple. He at least was able to see where the problems were and begin the strategy to recover the company - by eventually buying NeXT (as opposed to BeOS), among other things. His rep prior to and after leaving Apple is solid.

With state and community colleges offering MBAs to any who care to earn them, the tendency is to declared the degree devalued and of no effective use. Like many other benchmarks, the actual proof is in the performance - you judge the talent and skill of the MBA holder (since the degree itself instead of being a threshold of excellence simply becomes the basis for comparison between the holders). You can (for example) have the best set of tools in the world, but if you don't have the skills and experience to use them correctly, they simply become a more sophisticated and higher quality way of making a mess.
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #38 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Of course they are making an educated guess for most of the companies.

Most of the big companies actually give clearly segmented numbers, or are so focused on handsets that there's no need to segment them - the exceptions would be Apple, Samsung and probably LG. I'm not even sure that Samsung don't, but their accounts are so complicated due to the mass of cross-holdings that I couldn't make head or tail of them when I last tried. After seeing Samsung I decided that I wasn't interested enough to dare LGs
post #39 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

They don't need to. The success of the iPhone clearly points to them having the correct price point. They are not going to go trawling the bottom of the barrel to compete with Android. They don't have to, and I'm glad they are not doing that.

While Tim stopped short of explicitly stating that Apple would pursue a lower price iPhone, he did state that Apple was working hard to figure out the prepaid market and that Apple didnt want its products to be just for the rich, but for everyone; he also stated that Apple understood price is big factor in the prepaid market and that the company was not ceding any market.

http://9to5mac.com/2011/02/28/tim-co...just-the-rich/
post #40 of 50
And if you put any one car manufacturer against all the rest, then it's a safe bet, all the rest, would add up to a larger market share.

Skip

PS And yes, IF Apple was to make their OS available to others, there might not be any others
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Apple snags 50% of handset industry profits ahead of first 100M iPhone year
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple snags 50% of handset industry profits ahead of first 100M iPhone year