or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple, Inc. iPad is obliterating Samsung, Google's Android in tablet profits
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple, Inc. iPad is obliterating Samsung, Google's Android in tablet profits

post #1 of 144
Thread Starter 
While market research firms publicly report that Apple's iPad is "losing market share" in tablet shipments, their data also says something else: Apple continues to obliterate Samsung, Google's Android, Microsoft, Amazon and the rest of the industry in tablet profits.

Garbage Tablets


Last weekend, Strategy Analytics announced that Apple had been surpassed by Samsung in handset profitability, a conclusion arrived at by assuming that Apple's iPhone was bringing in the same proportion of Apple's revenues as it earned in profits. That's not the case.

Horace Dediu of Asymco supplied additional data showing why that's wrong, information that is also useful when looking at the tablet market. But first note:

Nobody is really profitable in smartphones but Apple & Samsung



Dediu's figures indicate that Apple's iPhone gross profit margins are an incredible 46 percent, significantly higher than the 36.9 percent margins Apple reports for the overall company.

Dediu's report estimated that iPhone accounted for around $7.4 billion of Apple's $9.2 billion in operational profits, leaving just under $2 billion in profit across the rest of its product line. Strategy Analytics' "divide by two" figure attributed $4.6 billion in profits to iPhone and $4.6 billion to iPad, Macs, iPods, iTunes and everything else.

profits
Source: Asymco


A second independent report by Cannacord analyst Michael Walkley estimated Apple's Q2 iPhone earnings at $5.99 billion, with an operating margin of 33 percent.

"Operating margin" is what's left over from the gross profit margin (pure profit after subtracting cost of goods from the revenues collected) after you recognize all other operating expenses, including sales and administration costs and the billions of dollars of "CapEx" Apple is investing into equipment, retail stores and iTunes infrastructure.

Walkley compares the smartphone operating margins of Apple (33 percent) with Samsung (19 percent), LG (2 percent), Sony & HTC (both at 1 percent), Nokia (a loss; -1 percent), BlackBerry (a loss; -7 percent) and Google's Motorola (a loss; -22 percent).

Canaccord
Source: Cannacord


Asymco, Cannacord and Strategy Analytics all agree that Apple and Samsung are the only two healthy horses in the smartphone race.

The primary controversial aspect of Strategy Analytics' numbers is its assumption that Apple's iPhone profits are equal to the profitability of rest of its products. At the same time however, Strategy Analytics also reports that Samsung's smartphone profits are wildly out of proportion to the rest of that firm's other businesses, including its TVs and appliances, displays, memory and System LSI chip fab. Smartphones are more profitable, but they are for both companies.

The other side of the equation is even more interesting



Everyone also agrees that vast majority (slightly over 60 percent) of Samsung Electronics' revenues are coming from its IM Mobile group, because Samsung publicly reports this. An even larger percentage (nearly 66 percent) of Samsung's operating profits are reported to come from IM Mobile.

That necessarily means, by anyone's metrics, that outside of smartphones Apple is simply destroying Samsung's parallel IM Mobile business (including all of the company's sales of Galaxy tablets, Windows PCs and Chromebooks) in profitability. Strategy Analytics accounts for just $440 million in operational profits after subtracting Samsung's handset profits.Strategy Analytics is, essentially, diverting everyone's attention away from the icebergs to applaud the Titanic for being the first unsinkable ship to make it halfway across the Atlantic.

That figure is so tiny that I asked Strategy Analytics Senior Analyst Neil Shah for a confirmation that its handset profit figure for Samsung only counted phone sales. He verified that yes, "the operating profits are with respect to Samsung?s mobile handsets (smartphones, phablets, feature phones) only and excludes tablets, PCs, accessories, convertibles, networking etc."

Compare that with Apple's non-iPhone operating profit estimates by Cannacord ($3.21 billion) or Strategy Analytics ($4.6 billion).

Looked at from this direction, it's hard to understand why Strategy Analytics was focusing attention on its dubious claim that Samsung's handset profits had supposedly come within $600 million of Apple's iPhone profits, while ignoring the corollary conclusion: Apple's iPad and Mac sales were destroying Samsung's entire Galaxy Tab, Chromebook and Windows PC division by a factor of ten, or a difference of $4,160 million.

Ye blind guides, that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel!

That vast disparity actually seems noteworthy, particularly given the fact that Samsung has been warning its investors all year that its smartphone performance will increasingly be threatened by satiating demand and increased competition.

Strategy Analytics is, essentially, diverting everyone's attention away from the icebergs to applaud the Titanic for being the first unsinkable ship to make it halfway across the Atlantic.

This all happened before



Even if we use Cannacord's more conservative (and realistic) $3.21 billion estimate for Apple's non-iPhone operational profits, it means that of the only two companies that are profitable at all in smartphones, while Apple is also earning billions on its tablet and PC businesses, Samsung isn't.

Samsung had the same problem in matching Apple's blockbuster iPod profits in the early 2000s. While Apple Computer transitioned itself from being a PC maker to being Apple, Inc., with sales of millions of highly profitable new consumer electronics devices, Samsung was already making music playing devices. It just wasn't making similar profits from them. Even joining Microsoft's Android-like PlaysForSure program didn't help.

Additionally, nobody issued press releases insisting that Apple's iPod suffered from a falling "market share of shipments" problem simply because there were tons of no-name MP3 players flooding markets in China, although there were warnings that new crops of MP3-playing phones would eat up Apple's iPod sales. What really happened, however, was the opposite.

Galaxy


When Apple entered the smartphone market with iPhone, Samsung was already making lots of MP3 playing phones. It was considered a leading smartphone maker. It sold lots of Symbian phones, and in the U.S., Samsung's $500 BlackJack, patterned after the BlackBerry and based on Microsoft's Android-like Windows Mobile platform, seemed to be quite popular.

But neither its copycat looks nor its open platform generated profits for Samsung that were remotely comparable to what iPhone began doing for Apple, despite having a nicer camera (albeit no WiFi).

The upside down narrative of Samsung as a scrappy underdog



In 2007, Apple's Annual Report cited fiscal year revenues of $24 billion and operating income of $4.4 billion. Samsung Electronics reported (PDF) sales of $98.5 trillion Korean Republic Won ($180 billion in today's USD) and $9 trillion KRW ($8 billion in today's USD) in total operating income.

Samsung was earning something close to 7 times Apple's revenues, but only around twice its profits. Over the last six years of exploding smartphone sales, Apple has grown to report quarterly revenues of $35.3 billion in its cyclically slow calendar Q2, a multiple of nearly 6 times what it was collecting in 2007. But operating income is now at $9.2 billion, profit growth of more than 8 times over its earlier quarterly average.

Samsung 2007
Source: Samsung


Samsung now reports quarterly revenues of $57.46 trillion KRW ($51.1 billion) and $9.53 trillion KRW ($8.48 billion) in total operating income. That's revenue growth of just around $6.1 billion and about $6.48 billion in new profit.

Nothing to sneeze at, but Samsung is no longer taking in 700 percent Apple's revenues; it's currently pulling just 45 percent more revenue. And it's earning less income: right at 70 percent of Apple's, rather than 181 percent six years ago when the iPhone arrived. The popular narrative of Samsung rapidly growing and taking away Apple's market share in smartphones and tablets is completely backwards.

This massive reversal of fortune is evident even when looking at what was the blockbuster launch quarter of Samsung's Galaxy S4 flagship, but the last hurrah of iPhone 5; Apple's nadir quarter following six months of no new iPhone releases, no new iPads, no new iPods, and only one new Mac model. Additionally, Samsung makes (and profits from) a variety of components in Apple's products, including some of the most expensive: displays and memory and the SoC.

The popular narrative of Samsung rapidly growing and taking away Apple's market share in smartphones and tablets is completely backwards. Apple has absolutely crushed Samsung in its recent historical smartphone growth, continues to outmatch Samsung in smartphone profits (despite Samsung having far greater carrier distribution and making its own components) and is simply obliterating Samsung in tablets, PCs and everything else.

Samsung's leaky firewall, which has allowed Apple's confidential components orders with System LSI to freely inform its mobile group of Apple's every competitive move, has failed to allow Samsung to keep up, and even its methodical, "slavish copying" of Apple since the iPhone 3GS and iPad have not stacked the deck in Samsung's favor enough to restore the once towering edge it maintained over its long term American components client.

The secret huge drop in Q2 tablet shipments



If the fact that Samsung's entire non-phone earnings from PCs, Chromebooks and Galaxy Tabs only amounts to around 12.5 percent of Apple's non-iPhone profits seems to be a surprisingly well-kept secret, there's even a bigger relevant fact that nobody in the tablet market reporting business seems interested in talking about.

While every market analyst and research firm has predicted that tablets will continue to grow as PC sales stagnate or continue to shrink, so far everyone is agreeing that branded tablet shipments have fallen by millions of units over the past quarter.

Strategy Analytics, Digitimes and Canalys have all cited total branded tablet shipments for Q2 that were dramatically lower than their Q1 figures. Apple's iPad sales fell from 19.5 million to 14.6 million, but Apple's sales are dramatically cyclical, and the company is gearing up to launch a new crop of iPads after having released no new models since last fall.

The drop in tablet shipments by the rest of the industry has no similar explanation. Shipments of branded tablets as reported by Strategy Analytics fell over the previous quarter by 4.4 million. Figures by Digitimes reported a drop of 2.58 million.

Canalys reported tablet numbers dropping by an incredible 7.7 million over the previous quarter. That's more shipments than Samsung shipped in Q2!

Canalys
Source: Canalys


The only figures supporting a quarterly increase in tablet shipments in Q2 are Strategy Analytics' numbers which include that "optional" additional 15.5 million White Box Tablets, a fantastically enormous and completely mysterious increase that neither Canalys nor Digitimes have reported.

The most compelling reason for shipments to drop is because the channel is full, the result of too many shipments and not enough buyers. In Q4 of 2006, for example, Microsoft shipped more than 4 million Xbox 360 units in order to meet a stated goal Bill Gates had earlier made for the end of the year. It then shipped just two million units over the next two quarters. It couldn't ship more because the channel was stuffed with inventory.

stuffed channel


Misleading marketing in channel inventory shipments



Microsoft clearly stuffed the channel with Surface tablets this year, and has admitted as much. It had to write off $900 million against its other profits in the most recent quarter because the Surface was shipping but not actually selling.

Android tablets appear to have stuffed the channel as well, but because no Android vendor actually reports its shipments or sales, it's hard to say how badly any one of them is hurting. That is, of course, why none of them actually report their sales or shipments.

The most flattering information any of them can provide is an occasional press release citing shipments of a new model (which sounds good because it takes millions of units to stock empty shelves globally, even if there are no sales), or even more pathetically, the idea that some unknown number of units has "sold out" in a short period of time at a particular retailer.

Google sold out of the Nexus 4 last fall, before it was deduced from serial numbers that it had only actually produced just 400,000 units of it over the entire quarter.

Microsoft fans hailed both shipments and sell outs of Surface tablets, but it was still a massive flop.

Apple doesn't want a leading share of channel inventory



While the media focuses on reporting Apple's "lower percentage of tablet shipment share," Apple is not trying to stuff the channel in a race to win a larger "share" of the world's unsold inventory, because maintaining inventory isn't profitable. It's expensive, just ask Microsoft.

In fact, as the only vendor that reports unit sales of tablets, Apple also reported that it has allowed its channel inventories to drop during the last quarter. Rather than stuffing the channel, Apple's inventory for calendar Q2 is down by 600,000 iPhones and 700,000 iPads over the previous quarter.

As Apple's chief financial officer Peter Oppenheimer stated in the company's earnings call (which also cited the above numbers), "channel inventories declined sequentially by $1 billion during the June quarter."

It's as if the media is observing a game of golf and snickering contemptuously at the player with the lowest score.

What does Apple know about selling tablets?



Apple successfully introduced iPad after Microsoft failed for a decade to launch Bill Gates' pet Tablet PC project. Microsoft partnered with notable hardware leaders, including Samsung and HP, both of whom kept trying new tablet designs each time Microsoft unveiled a new tablet initiative.

After the iPad began selling, Samsung focused its efforts on copying Apple's hardware, a strategy that so far has seemed to work in its favor. It is uncontroversial that behind Apple's 14-19 million iPad sales per quarter, Samsung is now world's second largest shipper of tablets.



For Q1, IDC pegged Samsung's tablet shipments at 8.8 million, about three times that of third place Asus and nearly 5 times Amazon's fourth place tablet shipments. Nobody else was shipping even one million tablets per quarter. For Q2, Canalys says Samsung shipped 7.4 million tablets, over 4.5 times the 1.6 million that it says Amazon shipped, and five times as many as Lenovo and Acer.

Unlike Apple, however, Samsung sells a tremendous range of different tablet models, sizes and brands, a strategy that has made its tablets not very profitable at all. If Samsung, the world's largest Android licensee, the most profitable Android vendor overall by far, and the second largest shipper of tablets by a huge margin, is only making $440 million across all of its PC, netbook and tablet sales combined, who else could possibly be making anything on tablets?

Asus, which IDC says is the world's second largest tablet producer, reported shipments of 3 million tablets in Q1 (IDC had estimated 2.7 million). Asus makes (and counts) Google's Nexus 7, in addition to its PC, netbook and PC components businesses. But Asus only reported total profits of $202 million for Q1, half the tiny bit Samsung reportedly earned outside of handsets. That's just 6 percent of Apple's "tablets and everything else but iPhone" earnings.

Amazon reported total earnings of just $181 million for Q1, and actually lost $7 million in Q2. So again, despite being the fourth largest tablet vendor in the quarter that it did pull a profit, Amazon's Kindle Fire and everything else that it sells, from cloud services to MP3s, eBooks, real books, Amazon Prime videos and Amazon's Android Appstore, all account for considerably less than a tenth of what Apple earned on its non-iPhone sales. Adding in the iPhone is just plain cruel.

Microsoft really wants to sell tablets, but multiple sources have reported that the company has sold fewer than 1.7 million Surface tablets over the past three quarters of its existence. Microsoft is, so far, clearly losing money in tablets. So much so that it had to write off $900 million against its other profits in the most recent quarter because of the Surface, less than the total revenue it reported from Surface since its launch.

One might think that rest of the tablet industry would strive to copy Apple closer, because what Apple is doing is clearly working, while what everyone else is doing is clearly failing. (Unless you're a fan of fire sales, in which case Microsoft's losses facilitate your shopping sprees).

Samsung's tablets were supposed to be more profitable than iPad



Samsung clearly wants to make money on tablets, but three years into the game of making iPad-like Galaxy Tabs, only 7.8 percent of its IM Mobile profits are coming from a source other than smartphones, according to Strategy Analytics.

The strange part is, Samsung should be making more money on tablets than Apple. According to iSuppli's hardware materials cost estimates from last August, Samsung's upscale Galaxy Note 10.1, priced like iPad at $499, cost only $260 in parts, yielding a profit after $10 in manufacturing costs of $229.

Galaxy Note BOM
Source: IHS iSuppli


The same firm's bill of materials estimate for last year's similarly-equipped iPad 3 was $316, which with similar manufacturing costs should have only earned Apple $173.

iPad 3 BOM
Source: IHS iSuppli


"Galaxy Note 10.1 could turn a decent per unit margin for Samsung, and stands to be a money maker?if the company can extend the recent success of the Samsung Galaxy Note smartphone to its tablet line," wrote the firm's senior director Andrew Rassweiler.

"Samsung is a behemoth in the electronic industry and its competitive strength lies in its control, via internal sourcing, of a large percentage of the components that go into its final products," he added.

Yet rather than earning $56 more per tablet, Samsung is shipping half as many tablets as Apple is selling and earning between a fifth and a tenth of what Apple makes, even when throwing in its Chromebooks and PCs, which shouldn't exactly be losing money either. The majority of the tablets Samsung sells must be lower end devices with very little profit margin.

If Samsung were making iSuppli's originally estimated gross profits across the 7.4 million tablets tablets it was estimated by Canalys to have shipped last quarter, it should have nearly $1.7 billion in tablet profits to add to its PC and netbook profits, rather than having just $440 million to show for the entire group.

Pearls before swine



However, a larger problem is demand. Regardless of how little money Samsung makes per tablet, it can only make any money if it actually sells its tablets, rather than just shipping them into the channel. And while it's problematic to compare IDC's numbers with Canalys' to track the progress of Samsung's tablet sales over the previous quarter (down 1.4 million if you do), all of the available tablet reports are in agreement that branded tablet shipments are down from the previous quarter, indicating that Samsung's are too.

[Update: IDC has now released its Q2 estimates, and they support the same quarterly drop in tablet sales Canalys indicated. IDC reports overall tablet sales down 8 percent in the most recent quarter, and even a steeper rate of decline by Samsung, despite it being the launch quarter of the company's flagship Galaxy Note 8.]

While Samsung, just like Apple, has built an exceptional smartphone business, particularly in markets where phone subsidies allow both of them to offer handsets that appear to be nearly free on contract, tablets typically sell for an upfront price, just like PCs and iPods.

Even Apple realized that consumers were not going to sign up for a second expensive cellular contract to "subsidize" iPad sales like a smartphone. Apple sells even its 4G iPads at full price, paired with a negotiated low price no-contract cellular service arrangement with carriers. Samsung didn't think to pioneer any sort of similar deal, despite having been in the Tablet PC market for many years before Apple launched iPad.

While Apple has convinced vast audiences to buy its other non-iPhone products, particularly iPads, Samsung hasn't. Samsung still makes less money than Apple on sales of twice as many handsets, but it makes just a tiny fraction of Apple's tablet profits despite shipping about half as many.

free!
Source: Samsung


Giving away tablets without a carrier subsidy (bundling them as freebees with a TV, camera or smartphone purchases, for example), which Samsung has been doing on a massive scale over the last three years, has not resulted in the creation of a profitable tablet business segment. If anything, it has eroded the perceived value of Android tablets.

So while Apple may carry a negative connotation among its critics as being "overpriced," Samsung has an even more disastrous reputation among its own customers as being nearly as free as a disposable AOL disc. It's really hard to start charging for something after you have been giving away for next to nothing.

How long can the rest of the industry keep losing money on tablets?



Microsoft insists it's in the tablet business to stay, but that's the same thing it said about the Zune. Microsoft has billions in revenue and billions in cash reserves, but it stopped building the Zune because losing money is not good business.

It's not clear how much (if any) money Apple was ever making selling Xserve, but the company is not making them anymore because they weren't making enough money.Exiting an industry after its profitability collapses is not uncommon. Dell is considering an exit from the consumer PC business because its executives think they can make more money selling enterprise software than they can selling profitless PCs in a market satiated with PC inventory. It's not clear how much (if any) money Apple was ever making selling Xserve, but the company is not making them anymore because they weren't making enough money.

IDC counts more "Other" tablets than any brand outside of Apple. Canalys says "Other" is selling more than Samsung. And the only growth Strategy Analytics can see it attributes to White Box Tablets, which represent lots of no-name tablets selling for as little as $75, none of which are anywhere near as profitable as what Samsung is selling.

At some point, companies mass producing devices for which there is a finite market will have to stop, just like many of the knockoff MP3 makers did once they realized that it was harder to make money selling fake iPods than they'd realized, or just like Dell exited the smartphone and mini-tablet businesses when it realized its Streak was over.

Until that happens, prepare yourself for lots of reports chiding Apple for not stuffing the channel into oblivion with generic junk while it instead relies on organic sales growth as it actually cultivates new markets for iPad.

Samsung isn't even the worst offender in shoveling garbage into the channel. There are large numbers of generic tablets being sold, and most of them do use Android. But if anyone thinks this a brilliant, sustainable business model, they need to read up about Atari game cartridges in the 1980s, or netbooks in 2009, or Google TV, or essentially anything that uses Android and isn't a smartphone.
post #2 of 144

For 20 years people shipped PCs with razor thin margins and almost no one made money except for Dell/HP/IBM selling into the enterprise market. You can keep pushing the narrative that profit == success, but eventually computing platforms get commoditized. There used to be a number of successful, vertically integrated Unix vendors, in fact, more vertically integrated than Apple, because they actually made their own CPUs, motherboards, storage, everything. They all got crushed by "unprofitable" Linux.

 

Microeconomics 101, the long run in a competitive market is for prices to trend towards marginal cost. The writing is on the wall and Wall Street knows it. It's absurd the way people cheerlead overpaying super-high margins to Apple, who then doesn't even reinvest the profits back into innovation, but is sitting on the cash, distributing it to investors, or buying back stock. This might sound great for investors, but it doesn't sound good for consumers.

 

Is this really what you want, to pay a 39% margin? Do you want into a car dealership and negotiate with the sales agent to pay MSRP or above?

 

Competition is supposed to drive down prices, if you're deliberating cheering for one company to win everything and set monopoly prices, you're a moron.

post #3 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

For 20 years people shipped PCs with razor thin margins and almost no one made money except for Dell/HP/IBM selling into the enterprise market. You can keep pushing the narrative that profit == success, but eventually computing platforms get commoditized. There used to be a number of successful, vertically integrated Unix vendors, in fact, more vertically integrated than Apple, because they actually made their own CPUs, motherboards, storage, everything. They all got crushed by "unprofitable" Linux.

 

Microeconomics 101, the long run in a competitive market is for prices to trend towards marginal cost. The writing is on the wall and Wall Street knows it. It's absurd the way people cheerlead overpaying super-high margins to Apple, who then doesn't even reinvest the profits back into innovation, but is sitting on the cash, distributing it to investors, or buying back stock. This might sound great for investors, but it doesn't sound good for consumers.

 

Is this really what you want, to pay a 39% margin? Do you want into a car dealership and negotiate with the sales agent to pay MSRP or above?

 

Competition is supposed to drive down prices, if you're deliberating cheering for one company to win everything and set monopoly prices, you're a moron.

 

It's a lot easier to erect a ridiculous strawman and then viciously attack him than it is to engage in a sensible conversation about any of the facts presented, isn't it?

 

What were Microsoft's software profit margins again? Well above 40%.

 

1990s PCs are not mobile devices. You could also mock change in the 1940s by comparing automobiles to the previous generation's trains, or in the 1970s insist that computers would always fill a room and that no individual would ever need one, and you can today insist that Apple's decade of profitability is a fluke and that Real Soon Now we're all going to have razor thin commodity phones that aren't garbage. But you'd be wrong over and over, just like you are in virtually every scathing comment you post. 

post #4 of 144
Daniel,

I greatly appreciate all the hard work you have been doing on fact checking and trying to make sense out of the inconsistent data coming out that is all over the map.

Great work!! No doubt some people will come on here and try to debate your findings. Some of which are likely being funded by Samsung to post here. You are on their radar now that you have made waves. Consider that a complement. You have my utmost respect and appreciation for doing this.

As its been said before. Funny thing about facts..they just keep getting in the way of politics. I think a similar thing can be said about these reports that you are trying to make sense of. I hope more journalists get off their butts and actually do some critical thinking also. The press has gotten lazy. I can't wait to see what happens once this article gets more review by the press and more people take a better look at the data being released. Thank you again.
Edited by snova - 8/2/13 at 11:55pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #5 of 144
Android tablets are horrible mess of pathetic hardware and leggy OS with major security issues. Most Android tablets are completely useless. Why people are buying that trash is beyond me. Some Android tablets are being sold with killer features like phone. Yes, phone feature in an 8 inch tablet! WTF are they thinking. Are cheap Android tablet owners too cheap for already dirt cheap Android smartphones? Android is so bad that it makes even Microsoft's products look like high class in comparison.

Lets talk about profits. In Android business Is there anyone out there making money on Android besides Samsung? Anyone...? Manufacturers? Developers? Even Google?

What really aggravates me is that all tech media is praising Android like its greatest OS ever existed while completely ignoring its flaws. They compare anything running Android with latest Apple devices and claim its superiority. Android is the biggest fail of tech industry. In next 10 or 20 years people will look back at history and remember Apple as innovator of modern technology and Android as a copycat.
post #6 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

Competition is supposed to drive down prices, if you're deliberating cheering for one company to win everything and set monopoly prices, you're a moron.

If you like what Walmart has done to retails across our country and the working wages by reducing margin and making up profit by selling in volume then you are the one who is a moron sir.

The kind of competition you talk about still creates monopolies or close to it which yield crappy disposable product, crappy service, support and worker that can barely make enough of a wage to make end meet. It's cyclical.
Are we better off as a society today the we were a few decades ago? Stuff is getting cheaper right? You are delusional if you think lower quality cheaper products and lack of customer support and service makes our lives better. It's getting worse. One of the best school districts is in Cupertino and people make a very good living working for Apple. Compare that to Bentonville, Arkansas, home to several billionaires and a bunch of poor people.
Edited by snova - 8/3/13 at 12:20am
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #7 of 144

Good work Daniel.

There is so much anti-Apple sensationalist journalism which is often wrong. Even it there is bias towards Apple, I think these articles are an important counter to all the click bait anti-Apple articles.

post #8 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

Is this really what you want, to pay a 39% margin? Do you want into a car dealership and negotiate with the sales agent to pay MSRP or above?

Competition is supposed to drive down prices, if you're deliberating cheering for one company to win everything and set monopoly prices, you're a moron.

If Apple's prices were too high... they wouldn't have sold 14 million iPads and 31 million iPhones last quarter. Obviously that wasn't the case.

It looks like Apple's prices... and what you get for those prices... are acceptable to consumers.

No one is forcing you to buy one of these "expensive" Apple products. Competition is driving down prices. Have you seen the prices of some of these Android tablets?

Unfortunately... most of those Android tablets are garbage. Sometimes you get what you pay for. That's why you can't base everything on price.

I wouldn't say the iPad is too expensive... I'd say most other tablets are too cheap (both in price and quality)

Follow this link to see what competition has done to Android tablets: http://www.robustbuy.com/laptops-tablets-android-tablets-c-551_1107.html
post #9 of 144
Excellent work! Your article really reveals some hidden truth in this industry. Samsung is just a copycat and spent most of its money on marketing. I think everyone is able to see it by just looking at the advertisement that Samsung puts up everywhere.
post #10 of 144
Gatorguy, KDarling, rjc999.

Brace yourself, boys.

You're going to have a HORRIBLE decade.

1wink.gif
Edited by GTR - 8/3/13 at 4:34pm
I always appreciate an Android fan who puts his energy into advertising Apple products.
Reply
I always appreciate an Android fan who puts his energy into advertising Apple products.
Reply
post #11 of 144

The way I look at it, every year, PC capabilities went up, and prices stayed the same or got lower.  You can talk all you want about Microsoft's margins, but Microsoft was selling Windows for less than 10% of the cost of a PC. The massive progress in GPUs and CPUs was the result of hyper-competition in the PC market and the legacy of that was billions plowed into semiconductor processes that Apple is now benefitting from, standing on the shoulders of all of that progress. The PowerVR GPUs in Ax chips are derived from desktop GPUs that went up against the heavy hitters of NVidia and ATI and failed, and so they pivoted to mobile where the tile-based-deferred-renderer architecture works much better from an efficiency standpoint.

 

If you walked into a PC shop in the 90s or early 00s, you'd see the same bewildering array of name and no-name PCs, from big brands and from uber-cheap Asian manufacturers. They'd all have roughly similar specs, and they'd all be dirt cheap, and they'd all be obsolete in a few months or a year. What's happening in Android is no different than what happened with the PC.  

 

The PC got commodified and vendors could only compete on price and specs. You see the same with Android, except they're also trying to "skin" things to differentiate, which Microsoft limited or prohibited for Windows. 

 

But the fruits are already here. The Nexus 7 2 destroys the iPad Mini. Way way better screen. More powerful. Cheaper. The only thing the iPads have going for them are the existing IOS apps market.  Honestly, if there was no iOS native apps, and all you had was a Web browser, iPad would be in deep trouble. Sooner or later the App Store's advantages in content will be eroded.

 

It's pretty simple. Apple has little competitive differentiation when it comes to hardware technology. Everything they use is bought and licensed from the same Asian manufacturers -- screens, ARM cores, GPUs, sensors, et al.  They have only two defenses against the pressures to commoditize: 1) iOS and 2) try to sue competitors.

 

As Microsoft proved in the 90s, path dependency in operating systems is a powerful factor in maintaining market share. The first mover advantage and existing apps provide powerful consumer incentives to "opt in" to where the greatest number of apps are. Remember how people used to whine about buying a Mac because it couldn't run their favorite Windows application? Apple had to fight tremendously against that to convince people they could find alternatives on OSX. 

 

Now Apple is in the boat that Microsoft was. A familiar whine is people discussing Android is "I can't find my app on Google Play", and Google will have to continue to work to showing there are indeed alternatives. 

 

What the downfall of Microsoft has shown is that, although it is difficult to unseat competitor with a large software ecosystem, it can be done. 

 

 

The reality is, mobile computing is going to be commoditized just like PCs were, just like TVs were, just like cars were. It is unstoppable.

post #12 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Gatrorguy, KDarling, rjc999.

Brace yourself, boys.

You're going to have a HORRIBLE decade.

1wink.gif

 

Is that the same horrible decade you had when Microsoft ruled over Apple in the 90s and 00s?  See, I don't see Apple with 95% of the market like Microsoft had. Google didn't let it get that far before doing something about it, Apple's marketshare is already split. Apple will never have the dominance you wish for, and the reason why their stock is taking  a beating is because Wall Street already knows the margins are heading down.  They might remain the most profitable even as their marketshare in the future dwindles. 

 

It was often the case that Apple was the #1 desktop by sales during the 90s, even as PCs dominated and no one made any money on them. We know how that worked out. Steve Jobs had to beg Bill Gates to rescue Apple from near bankruptcy.

post #13 of 144

Comparing Apple to Samsung is probably not relevant from the point of view of Samsung's shareholders.  

The real question is simpler: is Samsung better-off for having decided to enter the smartphone, tablet and Chromebook market? If it has made any profit above the required return on capital, then the answer is "yes". Working with Android, Samsung has dramatically expanded the size of the smartphone market and taken a lot of that. And made money on it. No doubt they plan to do the same in tablets, although they have some good competition.

 

Samsung has made a number of smart moves and is now probably the second most important player in an big category. Personally, if I was going to attack management teams for mistakes, I'd be looking more at Nokia, Microsoft and Sony, all of whom probably had better expectations of being where Samsung is now. 

 

Going on about Apple's wonderful margins ... these margins are great either because Apple is no longer doing much R&D on the phone (and hence the analysts' decisions to allocate these overheads to other products) or consumers are paying a lot more than the intrinsic value of the product, or Apple has substantial volume discounts in its supply chain and is pocketing the profit. I lick my lips as an Apple shareholder, I dig deep into my wallet as an Apple customer. Your celebration of Apple's outstanding margins is great from the shareholder's point of view. It says customers are paying a big premium for intangible added-value. I'm typing this on the best PC I've ever owned, a MacBook Pro, so I get it. (Although I don't find iPhones good value; I've been an Android phone user for a while).

 

I think that in the big picture the enterprise hardware business is very uncertain. By being a credible player in smartphones, tablets and Chromebooks, Samsung is keeping in touch with a number of products which could be very big. Most of which will be on small margins. Apple is not built to compete here: already the tighter margins on iPad minis are weakening Apple. But Samsung built its business selling memory chips. It probably finds its phone and tablet margins giddying, the very height of recklessness. It's well placed.

post #14 of 144
Quote:

 Honestly, if there was no iOS native apps, and all you had was a Web browser, iPad would be in deep trouble. Sooner or later the App Store's advantages in content will be eroded.

Actually, the history with Windows shows that this can become an extremely difficult barrier to overcome. People get locked into a platform. Android tablets have a chance because there are a lot of Android phone users who already have entry to the platform. They may own an iOS tablet, but a good Android tablet in the future is possible. Apple has a long, profitable future ahead of them. Microsoft has the big problem. Hardly any market share in phones, and a debacle in tablets. 

post #15 of 144
I'm sure Apple pays more for components than Samsung in the BOM listed since Apple buys them from Samsung and Samsung mfg them for cheaper than what they sell them to Apple for. Plus the Apple aluminum case isn't cheap to fabricate.
post #16 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Richardson View Post

Actually, the history with Windows shows that this can become an extremely difficult barrier to overcome. People get locked into a platform. Android tablets have a chance because there are a lot of Android phone users who already have entry to the platform. They may own an iOS tablet, but a good Android tablet in the future is possible. Apple has a long, profitable future ahead of them. Microsoft has the big problem. Hardly any market share in phones, and a debacle in tablets. 

 

One way to look at these mobile devices however is like game consoles. When developers max out their returns in one store, they obviously seek to resell the software in the other. As long as Android has bootstrapped a large enough market, this will engender a multi-platform strategy for most developers. If you look at the games business, there are now, very few exclusives, most of them 1st party titles produced by studios owned or contracted to by the platform sellers. The way the X-Box and Playstation have split the console market roughly in half, and the way both consoles get almost all of the same software except for a few titles (e.g. Halo/Gears of War on XB, Uncharted/Killzone on PS. Even Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy are multi-platform now)

 

 

The economics of the App store are somewhat even worse than the consoles, because you're competing against hundreds of thousands of apps, many of them free, and so your product scrolls off the consumer's radar relatively quickly.

 

I think the market is more dynamic than it was during Microsoft's reign. Software is much easier to distribute. Thus, I think Apple's "lock in" and exclusives from a path dependency point of view won't have near the power that Microsoft had in its height.

 

And if you look at the way Google is going after the EDU and Corp markets, they are on-boarding a lot of new mobile users onto their platforms.

post #17 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by mir808 View Post

Android tablets are horrible mess of pathetic hardware and leggy OS with major security issues. Most Android tablets are completely useless. Why people are buying that trash is beyond me. Some Android tablets are being sold with killer features like phone. Yes, phone feature in an 8 inch tablet! WTF are they thinking. Are cheap Android tablet owners too cheap for already dirt cheap Android smartphones? Android is so bad that it makes even Microsoft's products look like high class in comparison.

Lets talk about profits. In Android business Is there anyone out there making money on Android besides Samsung? Anyone...? Manufacturers? Developers? Even Google?

What really aggravates me is that all tech media is praising Android like its greatest OS ever existed while completely ignoring its flaws. They compare anything running Android with latest Apple devices and claim its superiority. Android is the biggest fail of tech industry. In next 10 or 20 years people will look back at history and remember Apple as innovator of modern technology and Android as a copycat.

A lot of tablet buyers that are buying the Android tablets probably don't really use them much and they don't spend much on them since they are just trying to rebel against Apple and they are just trying to act like they are hip and cool because they have a tablet.  I still have yet to see anyone use a tablet other than an iPad or the occasional Kindle.  All you have to do is see what people use at a Starbucks.  Spend an after noon at a busy Starbucks or a place where people sit and use laptops and tablets in public places and see what people pull out.

post #18 of 144
Tim,

High volume low margin HW game is dangerous. As you know,If you don't sell the vast majority of what you make you are in big trouble. This is why many of the pc hardware guys are folding. Samsung is trying to move up market in HW margins. No one accusing them of low margin high end HW products. Look at Samsung margins on galaxy tab 8 and 10. Look at margin on galaxy s 4. They are not saints nor are they stupid when it comes to HW margin on these. No doubt they would rather sell high end high margin products then gamble with high volume low margin feature phones. What they are being accused of is copying Apple's ideas on the SW UI front.

Also I'm not sure what makes you believe apple is standing still on R&D. You can be assured they are designing away. You think they just pulled out new radical Mac Pro design over the weekend worth of work? Did you see that one coming? You can bet on them doing lots of creative R&D and it more then trying to stuff retina into the ipad mini. Look at the financials on R&D, it's not hard to figure out how substantial it is.

"Delay is preferable to error" Thomas Jefferson.
Edited by snova - 8/3/13 at 1:03am
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #19 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

For 20 years people shipped PCs with razor thin margins and almost no one made money except for Dell/HP/IBM selling into the enterprise market. You can keep pushing the narrative that profit == success, but eventually computing platforms get commoditized. There used to be a number of successful, vertically integrated Unix vendors, in fact, more vertically integrated than Apple, because they actually made their own CPUs, motherboards, storage, everything. They all got crushed by "unprofitable" Linux.

Tell that to all the companies, American and Japanese, who exited the PC market or went bankrupt in the last 10 years. A healthy market with innovation comes from making and selling products with a healthy profit margin. Maybe it's not 36 percent, but it surely ain't 1 to 10 percent or even loosing money. In the end, the consumer looses, because there's less choice in companies, and the companies that carry on won't have the money to innovate -- or simply don't see the point.

post #20 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by John F. View Post

Tell that to all the companies, American and Japanese, who exited the PC market or went bankrupt in the last 10 years. A healthy market with innovation comes from making and selling products with a healthy profit margin. Maybe it's not 36 percent, but it surely ain't 1 to 10 percent or even loosing money. In the end, the consumer looses, because there's less choice in companies, and the companies that carry on won't have the money to innovate -- or simply don't see the point.

Those companies went bankrupt because the whole PC market is going down hill. You really think the problem with Dell was their prices? It's like saying "Horse and Buggy manufacturers went out of business after Cars were introduced because they had low margins" No, the problem is, their sales are going down.

 

Unix vendors got booted out of their markets because they couldn't keep up with Intel in CPUs, only IBM remains with PowerPC. MIPS, PA-RISC, SPARC, et al, they all fell to the Intel/AMD monster. On hardware, they found themselves eaten by Intel and commodity PCs, on software they got eaten by Linux. As a result, many of them, like Silicon Graphics, you know, the company that practically invented 3D and built some of the best desktop workstation designs way before people oogled over Apple designs, tried to enter the PC market, but it was already crowded. They had no where to go execept Hyper-computing with Cray, and that failed too.

 

Repeat to yourself: Revenue solves all problems. If you've got revenue, even if you've got low margins, you have a business. Amazon knows this very well. Amazon fixes prices and capex in order to set profit as close to zero as possible. However, they can turn a profit at any moment if they wanted.

 

Apple really had no excuses for high margins for "innovation". They have $100+billion in the bank. They could lose $5 billion a year and still run for 20 years. This reminds me of the way Oil Company tax breaks are defended "They need these tax breaks for R&D and exploration!"  Really? Exxon needs subsidies in order to influence them to look for more oil? Give me a break.

post #21 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post


Also I'm not sure what makes you believe apple is standing still on R&D. You can be assured they are designing away. You think they just pulled out new radical Mac Pro design over the weekend worth of work? Did you see that one coming? You can bet on them doing lots of creative R&D and it more then trying to stuff retina into the ipad mini. Look at the financials on R&D, it's not hard to figure out how substantial it is.
 

 

Ok, that new Mac Pro is fscking sweet and I want one, but really, this is not what I'd call R&D. It's design and product development. You know who's doing R&D? Samsung. They're figuring out how to manufacture flexible displays.  IBM is dropping huge sums in Lithium-Air batteries. 

 

If we're going to have radically breakthroughs in the next generation of devices, we need radically better battery, or radically more durable, or radically more powerful, or with much faster networks. There are companies dumping tons of money into researching these things.

 

Apple isn't. Apple is a buyer. They buy the fruits of the raw R&D done by other players, and design a pleasant case to fit it into. The idea of Apple being a chip fab is something that appeals to me. Intel, TSMC, et al, need competition. The idea of Apple researching battery chemistry appeals to me, because they have a concrete application for it that should drive it.

 

Here's the question: Since Apple is so dependent on Samsung and Sharp, and Japan Display, and others,  but they have a huge arsenal at their command, which they could use to develop technology that no one else has or could buy, why aren't they?

post #22 of 144
rjc999

Amazon is retailer for the most part they can keep margins low because hardly keep any inventory and make nothing. If product B sells better then competing product A, they could care less. They are not left holding the bag with excess inventory.
So I don't know if you intentional tries to confuse by mixing apple and oranges but many can tell the difference between retailers who keep minimal inventory to manufactures.

Btw, you make it sound like wintel was successfull because they had low 1-10%margins. That's simply was never true. Even now in the pc market down turn they are pulling in around 25%. If I didn't know better it would appear you are jumping around on tangents trying to deceive others. Why are you here anyways? Are you a saint for apple competitors, a stock holder, a day trader trying to short the stock, or are you being paid by a competitor. I doubt I'll get an honest answer but I thought I would put it out there. Very odd behavior.
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #23 of 144
Samsung doesn't make jack in component innovation breakthroughs compared to what they make on fully integrated high margin integrated products like the galaxy phone and you know it. Stop going off on tangents your dancing sucks. Good night.
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #24 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

Those companies went bankrupt because the whole PC market is going down hill. You really think the problem with Dell was their prices? It's like saying "Horse and Buggy manufacturers went out of business after Cars were introduced because they had low margins" No, the problem is, their sales are going down.

 

Unix vendors got booted out of their markets because they couldn't keep up with Intel in CPUs, only IBM remains with PowerPC. MIPS, PA-RISC, SPARC, et al, they all fell to the Intel/AMD monster. On hardware, they found themselves eaten by Intel and commodity PCs, on software they got eaten by Linux. As a result, many of them, like Silicon Graphics, you know, the company that practically invented 3D and built some of the best desktop workstation designs way before people oogled over Apple designs, tried to enter the PC market, but it was already crowded. They had no where to go execept Hyper-computing with Cray, and that failed too.

 

Repeat to yourself: Revenue solves all problems. If you've got revenue, even if you've got low margins, you have a business. Amazon knows this very well. Amazon fixes prices and capex in order to set profit as close to zero as possible. However, they can turn a profit at any moment if they wanted.

 

Apple really had no excuses for high margins for "innovation". They have $100+billion in the bank. They could lose $5 billion a year and still run for 20 years. This reminds me of the way Oil Company tax breaks are defended "They need these tax breaks for R&D and exploration!"  Really? Exxon needs subsidies in order to influence them to look for more oil? Give me a break.

The PC mfg don't make much in the way of profits because they have to compete against one another on price and they squeeze each other over selling product.  They also spend too much time developing and supporting too many different models.  Plus they spend more money per customer with tech support because they didn't develop Windows and they have to be able to support an OS they didn't develop.  Support costs are much higher.


The UNIX suppliers found themselves only going after a very specialized workstation environment and LInux is getting more traction for highly specialized systems and then they get squeezed on the hardware side. The server side is where the money is at because they usually get service/support contracts and they can sell consulting services providing the installation of high end Enterprise Applications.

 

If you look at animation for movies and games, Windows is there and Linux is there, but in reality, that's not a HUGE number of users.  But Apple is also starting to gain more traction in that area.

 

Amazon runs on a very small margin, they can't just automatically increase margin whenever they want to.  I think Amazon is in a market that traditionally doesn't do well in terms of profits.  It's a low profit margin business because all they do is really transaction processing and maybe some warehousing, packing and shipping product. They just OEM their tablets which they make little money on and I don't know how well Kindle going to do in the future.  I don't hear much about Kindle anymore.

post #25 of 144

If you ask why I'm here, it's because I love Apple products, but I don't like the way Apple has been running the company, under-investing, over-litigious, and fostering a cult of zealots. They could be better than that. Any company that such huge profits could be acting better. And Apple fans need to grow up and stop acting so childish. 

 

As for Amazon, if you set their prices at the same levels as WalMart, and drop the crazy CapEx spending, their margins go up to 4%. WalMart has 3-4% margins, banks like $16 billion in profit per year. AMZN is deliberating lowering their margins so as to a) avoid taxes b) aggressively expand distribution centers and c) continue to steal customers by undercutting everyone else. They have a lot of wiggle room to restore profitability, but investors believe in what they are doing, and so continue to finance their current strategy.

 

You could argue that if they go back to Walmart price levels, they'll lose customers, but Amazon is more than about having cheap prices, it's also the overall experience of features like Amazon Prime. Often, Amazon doesn't have the absolute cheapest price, but I still buy from them for convenience.

post #26 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

Ok, that new Mac Pro is fscking sweet and I want one, but really, this is not what I'd call R&D. It's design and product development. You know who's doing R&D? Samsung. They're figuring out how to manufacture flexible displays.  IBM is dropping huge sums in Lithium-Air batteries. 

If we're going to have radically breakthroughs in the next generation of devices, we need radically better battery, or radically more durable, or radically more powerful, or with much faster networks. There are companies dumping tons of money into researching these things.

Apple isn't. Apple is a buyer. They buy the fruits of the raw R&D done by other players, and design a pleasant case to fit it into. The idea of Apple being a chip fab is something that appeals to me. Intel, TSMC, et al, need competition. The idea of Apple researching battery chemistry appeals to me, because they have a concrete application for it that should drive it.

Here's the question: Since Apple is so dependent on Samsung and Sharp, and Japan Display, and others,  but they have a huge arsenal at their command, which they could use to develop technology that no one else has or could buy, why aren't they?

This post is full of shift it stinks. Comes back when you understand tech *much* better. If Samsung is so great, why they didn't make an iPad before an iPad? Remember, the first Galaxy Tab only used a phone OS. Why did they need Apple to show the way? (The first Galaxy phone was also more than 2 years after an iPhone..)
In fact, why did everyone need Apple to show them the way?
Edited by matrix07 - 8/3/13 at 3:40am
post #27 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

Samsung doesn't make jack in component innovation breakthroughs compared to what they make on fully integrated high margin integrated products like the galaxy phone and you know it. Stop going off on tangents your dancing sucks. Good night.

 

Who cares what they make in profits in innovation breakthroughs, why is everything related to profit with you people? These advancements push the entire world forward, even if the original inventor doesn't make a dime. I just don't get why you Apple fans are so in love with corporations making profits.

 

I'm sure drug companies can make a lot more on Viagra than they could make on a cure for a rare form of cancer, but a breakthrough on a rare cancer drug would IMHO be much better than an improvement in hard-on drugs.

 

Face it, Apple is a parasite when it comes to research and development. They rely on others to make the sunk costs and produce the breakthroughs, then they license the work and make the end products with the margins. AT&T Bell Labs, IBM T.J. Watson, Xerox PARC, Toshiba, Intel, et al What's the equivalent of IBM Systems Journal for Apple? Where's their research papers?

 

This is a company that is a ludicrously stingy with their money. It is the companies doing crazy, if not commercially successful research, companies that produce high failures, that make the world a better place and push it forward.  Toshiba invented Flash memory. Where the hell would Apple be without it? 

 

You want a tangent? The style of thinking exhibited by you is exactly equivalent to the Republicans moaning over Department of Energy investments and loans into energy research. Solar panels not profitable, companies going bust, Solyndra! Let's cut investments and only do things with zero risk and profit!  Apple may be more profitable, but in my book, companies like IBM or AT&T did far more for the world by pushing basic science and engineering forward.

 

Apple is a jewelry company by comparison, making trinkets, and not knowing how to mine the silver they use.

post #28 of 144

I think the article is pretty spot on.  Yep, Apple is making more money and higher margins than other manufacturers- at the expense of the 'irrelevant' thing called market share.

 

You could go back in time about a year and find the same article, just substitute 'iPad' for iPhone, and 'Android tablets' for Android phones.

 

 

A year ago (actually, not even a year ago) the 'cheerleading' was along the lines of Apple phones having 70%+ of the profits, so who cares if Android is gaining market share?

 

Fast forward to now.  A recent analysis and article shows Samsung surpassing Apple in profits.  Of course that analysis is debunked and refuted and then the author comes back with his own more favorable that shows.... Apple making 53%, Samsung 50%.  If someone as biased as AppleInsider can only cite that as the best info for their side that's not really terrific data.  I'm good with either set of data because it really isn't important to me who is ahead.  It might make fans feel good if their horse is slightly ahead, but the reality is- how in the hell do you go from 70% to only 53% profits in a year?  Market share.

 

 

Apple leading in tablet margins and profits.  Yep.  Is it an article that really needed to be written?  Is there anyone out there claiming Apple doesn't make the highest margins or profits in tablets?  I haven't seen any articles or data along those lines.  If Apple chooses to ignore market share that is fine.  It may even be necessary if their goal is to provide high quality products with a high caliber user experience.  If that's the path they do choose, its likely in a year from now we'll see an article that some analyst now shows Samsung is making more money than Apple in tablets which will be refuted to show that Apple is actually making 50.1% of the profit and is actually still 'winning'

 

Market share is important, and it is a precursor to profits.  If giving it away is a deliberate strategy of Apple that's okay and their fans should appreciate Apple for it.  The expectation should be that profits will follow but lag market share.

post #29 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post


This post is full of shift it stinks. Comes back when you understand tech *much* better. If Samsung is so great, why they didn't make an iPad before an iPad? Remember, the first Galaxy Tab only used a phone OS. Why did they need Apple to show the way? (The first Galaxy phone was also more than 2 years after an iPhone..)
In fact, why did everyone need Apple to show them the way?

Son, I've been working in the tech industry since the beginning of Silicon Valley. Come back when you understand the difference between basic research and products. What Apple does is applied technology, not basic research. Where are the papers? 

 

Let me educate you as to what REAL Research and Development is: http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/journal/index.html

 

Here's another example: http://www.sri.com/

 

Note: it doesn't count if you simply buy the finished tech (ala Siri, which was originated at SRI), as opposed to funding the research yourself with your own employees.

 

If Apple does basic research, why do they get their speech tech from Nuance and their AI from SRI? Google hires researchers, like Ray Kurzweil, gives them resources and grants to work on projects, not products. Apple is a shell company by comparison, going to the supermarket to buy and license the technology developed by others and than prepackaged into a shiny aluminum frame. 

 

I've give them props on design. But they don't invent technology, they package it.

post #30 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

It's a lot easier to erect a ridiculous strawman and then viciously attack him than it is to engage in a sensible conversation about any of the facts presented, isn't it?

What were Microsoft's software profit margins again? Well above 40%.

1990s PCs are not mobile devices. You could also mock change in the 1940s by comparing automobiles to the previous generation's trains, or in the 1970s insist that computers would always fill a room and that no individual would ever need one, and you can today insist that Apple's decade of profitability is a fluke and that Real Soon Now we're all going to have razor thin commodity phones that aren't garbage. But you'd be wrong over and over, just like you are in virtually every scathing comment you post. 
rjc999 thinks the government should steal Apple's cash and give it away to universities. Oh and thinks the new MacPro is just Apple putting other companies R&D in to a pretty case.

All you need to know about this poster right there.
Edited by Rogifan - 8/3/13 at 4:33am
post #31 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

This post is full of shift it stinks. Comes back when you understand tech *much* better. If Samsung is so great, why they didn't make an iPad before an iPad? Remember, the first Galaxy Tab only used a phone OS. Why did they need Apple to show the way? (The first Galaxy phone was also more than 2 years after an iPhone..)
In fact, why did everyone need Apple to show them the way?
What about all of the semiconductor work Apple does (which Bob Mansfield is now going to focus on full time)? That's not other people's R&D. Same with battery life. Tests show battery life for iPad min and 4th gen iPad is better than Android and Windows tablets. And lets see how many PC OEM's are able to match the MacBook Air's battery life. Once again that's Apple R&D.
post #32 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

The way I look at it, every year, PC capabilities went up, and prices stayed the same or got lower.  You can talk all you want about Microsoft's margins, but Microsoft was selling Windows for less than 10% of the cost of a PC. The massive progress in GPUs and CPUs was the result of hyper-competition in the PC market and the legacy of that was billions plowed into semiconductor processes that Apple is now benefitting from, standing on the shoulders of all of that progress. The PowerVR GPUs in Ax chips are derived from desktop GPUs that went up against the heavy hitters of NVidia and ATI and failed, and so they pivoted to mobile where the tile-based-deferred-renderer architecture works much better from an efficiency standpoint.

If you walked into a PC shop in the 90s or early 00s, you'd see the same bewildering array of name and no-name PCs, from big brands and from uber-cheap Asian manufacturers. They'd all have roughly similar specs, and they'd all be dirt cheap, and they'd all be obsolete in a few months or a year. What's happening in Android is no different than what happened with the PC.  

The PC got commodified and vendors could only compete on price and specs. You see the same with Android, except they're also trying to "skin" things to differentiate, which Microsoft limited or prohibited for Windows. 

But the fruits are already here. The Nexus 7 2 destroys the iPad Mini. Way way better screen. More powerful. Cheaper. The only thing the iPads have going for them are the existing IOS apps market.  Honestly, if there was no iOS native apps, and all you had was a Web browser, iPad would be in deep trouble. Sooner or later the App Store's advantages in content will be eroded.

It's pretty simple. Apple has little competitive differentiation when it comes to hardware technology. Everything they use is bought and licensed from the same Asian manufacturers -- screens, ARM cores, GPUs, sensors, et al.  They have only two defenses against the pressures to commoditize: 1) iOS and 2) try to sue competitors.

As Microsoft proved in the 90s, path dependency in operating systems is a powerful factor in maintaining market share. The first mover advantage and existing apps provide powerful consumer incentives to "opt in" to where the greatest number of apps are. Remember how people used to whine about buying a Mac because it couldn't run their favorite Windows application? Apple had to fight tremendously against that to convince people they could find alternatives on OSX. 

Now Apple is in the boat that Microsoft was. A familiar whine is people discussing Android is "I can't find my app on Google Play", and Google will have to continue to work to showing there are indeed alternatives. 

What the downfall of Microsoft has shown is that, although it is difficult to unseat competitor with a large software ecosystem, it can be done. 


The reality is, mobile computing is going to be commoditized just like PCs were, just like TVs were, just like cars were. It is unstoppable.

Yet Today people still buy plenty of " expensive" macs when they could have cheap pcs for a fraction of the price. People will continue to buy, and pay a premium for iPhones iPads as long as apple continues to offer the best overall user experience.
post #33 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post


 

But the fruits are already here. The Nexus 7 2 destroys the iPad Mini. Way way better screen. More powerful. Cheaper. The only thing the iPads have going for them are the existing IOS apps market.  Honestly, if there was no iOS native apps, and all you had was a Web browser, iPad would be in deep trouble. Sooner or later the App Store's advantages in content will be eroded.

 

...because as we know, Apple's current products are always beaten by other's products which have yet to ship.  1bugeye.gif

 

Apple has no plans whatsoever to ship an iPad Mini with a higher resolution screen, faster processors or graphics or more RAM.  Doomed I tell you, DOOMED!!!

 

Wake me up when you yokels stop holding your breath for a repeat of the 90s.

post #34 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

Is this really what you want, to pay a 39% margin? Do you want into a car dealership and negotiate with the sales agent to pay MSRP or above?

 

Competition is supposed to drive down prices, if you're deliberating cheering for one company to win everything and set monopoly prices, you're a moron.

 

Has it ever occurred to you that Apple has high profit margins because they have a better supply chain and don't sell budget products.

 

Do you think Samsung makes the same margins from all of it's phones? No. They make the real dollars on the S4 and next to nothing on the bottom feeder shit. This is why they have to sell 2.4x as many phones to still fall short of Apple's profits.

 

Apple is not in the budget bottom feeder market.

post #35 of 144
Daniel, once more, I sincerely thank you for all your hard work. These articles are priceless.

To everyone around me, it's a known fact that I love Apple. But, I'm not being called an Apple Fanboy!

I respect Apple as a company and Apple has become my role model not because I've been using their products only. But because they have worked damn hard to get to where they are today.

In a few years, some other company (NOT Amazon, Google, Samsung, Microsoft and others!!) will probably take over but Apple will be always remembered as the ONE and ONLY true American Success Story.

Back to AI, your 100% honest and well-researched articles are much appreciated.

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply
post #36 of 144

rjc999,

 

Competition is NOT about driving prices down ONLY, done for the day and go to bed good night sleep!

 

Lada cannot compete with Mercedes by lowering their prices in order to bring more business! WTF?!!!!

 

And, when was the last time Google hired some Einsteins to develop something useful, ANYTHING on its own?!!!

 

Do some research ... Son!

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply
post #37 of 144
Nice article! Frankly, very restrained and thorough compared to previous articles at this site which have contained embarrassingly empty cheerleading, blind propaganda and name calling.
post #38 of 144

Daniel last week:

 

Quote:
Strategy Analytics has to employ "research" to come up with this claim because Samsung doesn't actually report how many phones, smartphones, tablets, cameras or set top boxes it sells (or even the inventory numbers it ships) and doesn't report the profit share of any of these products segments.

 

 

Daniel this week:

 

Quote:
Apple, Inc. iPad is obliterating Samsung, Google's Android in tablet profits

 

 

How can you be certain that Apple is obliterating Samsung's tablet profits when Samsung doesn't report its profits per product segment? It's probably true but it would be great if you could be consistent rather than picking and choosing your side each week depending on whether the report is favorable to Apple.

post #39 of 144
Nonsense
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

Son, I've been working in the tech industry since the beginning of Silicon Valley. Come back when you understand the difference between basic research and products. What Apple does is applied technology, not basic research. Where are the papers? 

Let me educate you as to what REAL Research and Development is: http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/journal/index.html


Here's another example: http://www.sri.com/


Note: it doesn't count if you simply buy the finished tech (ala Siri, which was originated at SRI), as opposed to funding the research yourself with your own employees.

If Apple does basic research, why do they get their speech tech from Nuance and their AI from SRI? Google hires researchers, like Ray Kurzweil, gives them resources and grants to work on projects, not products. Apple is a shell company by comparison, going to the supermarket to buy and license the technology developed by others and than prepackaged into a shiny aluminum frame. 

I've give them props on design. But they don't invent technology, they package it.
.

Nonsense. If it's your position that they buy parts and put the together like the PCs? Even when they buy companies they hardly let the tech stagnate. Osx is a far cry from next. They continue to spend $$$$ developing Siri, maps, etc. They continue to patent improvements in all sorts of software and hardware designs. Applied? Yes... But what research is done in any field without an intent of applying that information? Life sciences... Applied to better medicine. Theoretical physics.... Intended to apply toward star travel or some other grand idea. Don't for a second believe google research is about anything other than apply the data toward making money!
post #40 of 144
rjc999, there's a job for you at the DoJ. Unless you already worked there.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Apple, Inc. iPad is obliterating Samsung, Google's Android in tablet profits
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple, Inc. iPad is obliterating Samsung, Google's Android in tablet profits