or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › IDC data shows 66% of Android's 81% smartphone share are junk phones selling for $215
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

IDC data shows 66% of Android's 81% smartphone share are junk phones selling for $215 - Page 2

post #41 of 164

I see both good and bad in these numbers for Apple.

 

The good news is they are doing very well at maintaining a high ASP while still growing. With the 5S in particular they've managed to slightly grow ASP from Q2 to Q3 this year, in a market that is clearly seeing pricing drops.  This is impressive.

 

The bad news is obviously they are losing share which may contribute to them pricing lower in the future.  The other thing I see that no one seems to have commented on is the growth of Windows.  I don't think too many people expected this type of growth from Windows.  It will be interesting to see how the industry as a whole reacts to this, including Apple.  Windows seem to be showing strength in Europe (Italy in particular for some reason) and the US, but not in Asia and Latin America.

 

The one area I criticize Apple for is not getting into the phablet/large screen market sooner.  I know many of you feel differently, but the data is compelling, this is where much of the growth in the high end of the market is.  

post #42 of 164

It appears you’ve forgotten to take into account Apple’s differed revenue model.  Apple discloses units, revenue and differed revenue.  None of it’s competitors, as far as I know, use a differed revenue model.  

 

It appears from the article you are using the total sales revenue for all phones and subtracting Apple’s realized revenue, without including their differed revenue for this year, to scry the actual number of Android phones sold.  A more accurate picture would be to also subtract Apple’s differed revenue as well as realized earnings from Android global earnings.  I'm guessing this would make things look even more dire for high end Android.

 

... but I could be wrong. 

post #43 of 164

Smartphones, even stripped down ones, are one of the most empowering devices created. Watching emerging countries basically skip the infrastructure for wired communications and jump straight to mobile is astounding.

 

Simply because Apple chooses not to go after the low and mid-end doesn't make it 'junk', nor does it diminish the importance of these phones. Millions of people are going straight from literally typewriters to basic Android handsets through which they can check email and browse the internet.

 

Unfortunately most developed nations, especially Americans, tend to have such a self-centric view of the world.

 

In 2 years when the basic Android handset is powerful enough to do pretty much everything for the student in the sub-Sahara or SE Asia, it will be a fantastic thing.

 

Also - the competition among the Android OEMs at the high end is a good thing for the consumer in driving down prices. 32GB is becoming the norm at the same price point as 16GB last year. Most phones get a price cut after a quarter b/c a new Android flagship is coming out. It's great for those consumers.

post #44 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

 

I know its your job to say that Android midrange phones deliver 'a poor experience'- but they really are quite good. 

 

Almost every day since he switched from his iPhone 4S earlier this year, I've had to listen to my manager complain about something with his S4, and says he absolutely "hates" it. He absolutely dreads having to open up his photo album, it takes minutes. Waiting for that certainly is an awesome experience!

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #45 of 164
This article is very correct but if this applies in the stock market , I think all of other stocks need to drop as they only rises coz of cheap and QE 3.
post #46 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

If you are primarily an investor, and your primary interest in Apple is not using their products but rather buying their shares in the hopes that you can sell them for more money at a later date- all those blogs and articles probably should concern you, and just take all of your 'Apple passion' out of the argument.  Apple's current valuation is based on them selling an insane amount of phones at profit margins much higher than other competitors in the market.  Continuing to do as well as they are currently doing will not drive their stock price up- it will generally mean they are correctly valued and the stock price will remain relatively flat.  In order for them to increase their valuation Apple will either need to sell substantially more phones at their current margins, or sell the same number of phones for higher margins.  If they start selling few phones, or sell a similar number of phones at lower margins- their valuation goes down.

The assumption you've made is that the current valuation is commensurate with Apple's fundamentals, which it isn't. The current valuation assumes that Apple is basically through growing its earnings. It's a fair bet that Apple's earnings and revenue are both going to be increasing over the present fiscal year, and by a quite respectable amount. A quite doable 20% increase would net Apple $60 billion this fiscal year. If half of that were spent on buybacks and half on dividends, with only 900 million shares outstanding now and possibly only 850 million by the end of the fiscal year, then the dividend would amount to (30/.85=) $35 per share in dividends. At today's price of $520/share, that's almost a 7% dividend.

 

Frankly, the market would have to be insane to allow a 7% dividend. Ergo, the price of the stock would have to basically double to keep the dividend down to a sane 3.5% level.

 

And if Apple grows earnings over 20%? It boggles the mind....

 

BTW, notice the long term effect of buying back shares: Dividends per share explode. That's why Apple's present buyback program is sheer genius.

post #47 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by PScooter63 View Post
 

 

It sounds like you're predicting a dearth of future innovation.  Why would you assume that?

 

You don't need to make a prediction for something that's already happened! 

 

Smartphone technology has already reached the point where a basic entry level device is 'good enough' at performing day to day tasks for most users.  It took PCs decades to reach that point. The bandwagon is already over for smartphones, move on.  I'm sure there will be something else for first world consumers to fixate on before long. 

 

Growing the accessibility of reasonably functioning 'good enough' smartphones to an increasingly wider market at ever shrinking price points is a good thing, why is it so difficult for so many people here see that?

post #48 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

What is so darn important about platform market share? Most of the companies selling Android devices are barely making anything from all that huge amount of market share although there must be some companies selling decent products that consumers are happy to be using. Should it matter to anyone if Casio is selling more watches than, say, Movado, Tag Heuer or Rolex?

 

Spot on.

 

You have to remember though that most of these journalists, like most politicians and press think that the overriding metric for life is Gross Domestic Product (GDP). If that's going up then the economy is growing (whatever that implies) and all is well with the world, our lives are better and have more meaning and satisfaction. GDP growth is the target of (mainstream) politics and economists and market share growth is the equivalent target of analysts and short sighted companies.

 

It's no surprise that they find difficulty in seeing what's really important and what the implications are.

post #49 of 164

I'd love to see some research into how people are actually using phones like the Samsung Galaxy Y. I'm guessing that no-one here owns one and that DED has no data to back up his claim that they're only being used as basic camera-phones.

 

Just because it's not a powerful smartphone doesn't mean that it's not being used as a smartphone. If it's a big seller in China, you can bet that local app developers are targeting it. The same goes with India. Its processing power is about on par with the iPhone 3GS and we all agree that the 3GS is a smartphone, right?

post #50 of 164
66%??
waaay to low.
sure it isn't 100%
Edited by bananaman - 11/13/13 at 3:49am
post #51 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by KiltedGreen View Post
 

 

Spot on.

 

You have to remember though that most of these journalists, like most politicians and press think that the overriding metric for life is Gross Domestic Product (GDP). If that's going up then the economy is growing (whatever that implies) and all is well with the world, our lives are better and have more meaning and satisfaction. GDP growth is the target of (mainstream) politics and economists and market share growth is the equivalent target of analysts and short sighted companies.

 

It's no surprise that they find difficulty in seeing what's really important and what the implications are.

 

And that, brother, is the problem with the world today. Continual GDP growth is as impossible as perpetual motion but the global corporations and politicians keep telling us that it's the only financial model worth following.

post #52 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by bananaman View Post

66%??
waaay to low.
sure it isn't 100%

I liked the 1% you used the first time.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #53 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


I liked the 1% you used the first time.

For the people without sarcasm detectors.

post #54 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post
 

I'd love to see some research into how people are actually using phones like the Samsung Galaxy Y. I'm guessing that no-one here owns one and that DED has no data to back up his claim that they're only being used as basic camera-phones.

 

Just because it's not a powerful smartphone doesn't mean that it's not being used as a smartphone. If it's a big seller in China, you can bet that local app developers are targeting it. The same goes with India. Its processing power is about on par with the iPhone 3GS and we all agree that the 3GS is a smartphone, right?

 

Web usage proves that they are not doing much with those cheap phones.  Since iOS usage is at about 85%

Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
post #55 of 164

I love how I've read this same news article on three different tech sites and every one of them spun it a different way haha.

post #56 of 164

Regarding "junk" phones in China, that no-one uses:

 

"The Xiaomi Mi3 is a very slim 8.1mm handset that features a 5-inch 1080p display and the latest Nvidia Tegra 4 chip with amazing graphics capabilities and 2GB of RAM. What’s most impressive, though, is its price. The Xiaomi Mi 3 price is set at 1999 yuan ($327) off contract."

 

That's a just announced, top-end device, from a manufacturer in China that has users more active in app usage than Apple's (and the company aims to make money from selling them things via the phone, Amazon Kindle HD style).

 

Basically equal or better than the latest, best Android phones you can buy anywhere in the world. They sell them in batches and 100,000 of them go in about 90 seconds.

 

$327 dollars, off-contract!

 

http://www.xiaomi.com/en/mi3

post #57 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Web usage proves that they are not doing much with those cheap phones.  Since iOS usage is at about 85%

Ah another stat "proving" a point of view. Here's another stat source with competing claims.
http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-ww-monthly-201210-201310
http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-ww-monthly-201210-201310

Stats... we all got 'em but we don't trust 'em except when we want to.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #58 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Perhaps that's why no Android vendor releases real numbers or any real per unit data in their financials.

But they do post earnings, and Samsung has been doing quite well, unfortunately none of the other manufacturers are.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #59 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Android phones start at below $50, you are trying to beat up a market that barely exists seeing as how you brought up "ignorance".

The people who buy these phones often do not want to pay extra associated data costs so do not use any thing other than voice calls and SMS, just like they did with the feature phones these "smartphones" are replacing. 

This shows up in usage stats where Android is the dark matter in the smartphone universe.

While that's true, some don't remain poor forever and Samsung is hoping that those that find themselves in a better financial position in several years will stick with what they know.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #60 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Perhaps that's why no Android vendor releases real numbers or any real per unit data in their financials.


As a US-based company I thought Motorola does. Could be wrong.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #61 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Web usage proves that they are not doing much with those cheap phones.  Since iOS usage is at about 85%

You mean the web usage statistics for the top US sites?

I've yet to see any reports on how low-cost smartphones are being used in India and China. I think it would be fascinating, and probably surprising, to find out.
post #62 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacAir View Post

And, most of all, iPhones are rare in most countries. That makes services like iMessage and FaceTime virtually useless for most people. Hangouts is useless too, but you see my point:

What point? FaceTime and iMessage are available on iPhones, iPads, iPod touches, macs. The install base is tremendous for those products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by economics View Post

That's a just announced, top-end device, from a manufacturer in China that has users more active in app usage than Apple's (and the company aims to make money from selling them things via the phone, Amazon Kindle HD style).

You have a source?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

But they do post earnings, and Samsung has been doing quite well, unfortunately none of the other manufacturers are.

Sammy has been doing well. But have they been doing well with less? Ie do they have to ship 200MM items to get $7billion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

As a US-based company I thought Motorola does. Could be wrong.

Unit sales are not required to be reported. Moto might, but I doubt it since they probably aren't selling a lot.
post #63 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Sammy has been doing well. But have they been doing well with less? Ie do they have to ship 200MM items to get $7billion?

Investors prefer a company that has many revenue streams versus just a handful. If a few of those streams die out of the first company it won't hurt much but if one of the revenue streams of the company with only a handful dry up it could prove disastrous.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #64 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Investors prefer a company that has many revenue streams versus just a handful. If a few of those streams die out of the first company it won't hurt much but if one of the revenue streams of the company with only a handful dry up it could prove disastrous.

Explain Google. How did we get to investors?
post #65 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Explain Google. How did we get to investors?

Because investors are the ones that judge a company with there money. Google is different because they don't manufacture a product. Investors know that as long as people have computers and want to search something Google will be the most commonly used search engine.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #66 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacAir View Post

So people can realize hoe pathetic this editorial is:

http://9to5google.com/2013/11/13/motorola-makes-moto-g-official-at-international-online-unveiling/

In the Android world, 199$ can give you:
  • Great 720p 329ppi 4.5" display;
  • s400 SOC;
  • 1gb of ram;
  • 33% more talktime than the 5s;
  • Nice design and build quality;
  • Fantastic Vanilla Android, only surpassed by iOS7;
  • Guaranteed updates.
  • 16gb storage.

AI needs someone with a little more knowledge. I mean: "Go away", "trash", "junk"?

I figured $199 price must be subsidized. Pretty darn surprised to read that's for an unlocked phone with no carrier subsidizing.

Wow. . .
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #67 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

You have a source?

 

http://www.tech-thoughts.net/2013/09/xiaomi-international-growth-data-usage-carriers.html

post #68 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

Well this settles two things:

1. The high end android phones are outselling the iPhone.
2. Phablets are a large part of the smartphone landscape.

Phablets alone are selling 1.6x as many units as the iPhone sells, and there are only two phablets that fall into something other than the high end category that I'm aware of - the two Galaxy Mega models, which are mid-tier phones.

Outside of the phablet category are most of the flagship models of the last year (assuming the cutoff is 5" and above).

Nexus 4 - 4.7"
HTC One - 4.7"
Moto X - 4.7"
LG Optimus G - 4.7"
Droid RAZR HD - 4.7"

Apple needs to offer a larger screen ASAP. Maybe even the rumored two larger sizes in addition to the current size.

 

Your list of phones well illustrates the delusion of many Android fans who think the higher end models of HTC, Motorola and LG are representative of the "81% marketshare." If that were the case, Apple’s App Store wouldn’t be dominate, and Google Play wouldn’t be a rummage sale of a bunch of adware. 

 

That’s also the point of the article: the higher end (for Android, anyway) is only 20% of these numbers. And the phones you seem to think are selling in quantity (because none of those companies would dare to say how many they are actually selling!) are actually selling in such low quantities that they hardly even shift the ASP of the Android market. 

post #69 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesMac View Post
 

 

The 3Q for Samsung and 4Q results from Apple came out fairly recently.

 

Samsung Electronic's net profit was approx. $7.7 billion and Apple's was $7.5    The Operating profit for Apple was higher, but you've stated net profit, where Samsung beat Apple.

 

So you are arguing that Apple pays higher taxes overalll? How is that relevant to the comparison of Apple vs Samsung in mobile devices? 

 

Or do you think it is important that everything else Samsung does, from heated bidet toilet seats to refrigerators, contributes a tiny amount that allows its plateauing mobile sales to, after taxes, amount to slightly more than Apple? 

 

post #70 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post
 

 

So you are arguing that Apple pays higher taxes overalll? How is that relevant to the comparison of Apple vs Samsung in mobile devices? 

 

Or do you think it is important that everything else Samsung does, from heated bidet toilet seats to refrigerators, contributes a tiny amount that allows its plateauing mobile sales to, after taxes, amount to slightly more than Apple? 

 

 

The relevance is that Samsung has more funds to reinvest back into the business as any first year business student could tell you.

 

Have you used those heated toilet seats with the dual spray jets?   I used those in Japan, damn they're better than what we have in the west!

post #71 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesMac View Post
 

I see both good and bad in these numbers for Apple.

 

The good news is they are doing very well at maintaining a high ASP while still growing. With the 5S in particular they've managed to slightly grow ASP from Q2 to Q3 this year, in a market that is clearly seeing pricing drops.  This is impressive.

 

The bad news is obviously they are losing share which may contribute to them pricing lower in the future.  The other thing I see that no one seems to have commented on is the growth of Windows.  I don't think too many people expected this type of growth from Windows.  It will be interesting to see how the industry as a whole reacts to this, including Apple.  Windows seem to be showing strength in Europe (Italy in particular for some reason) and the US, but not in Asia and Latin America.

 

The one area I criticize Apple for is not getting into the phablet/large screen market sooner.  I know many of you feel differently, but the data is compelling, this is where much of the growth in the high end of the market is.  

 

Careful with statistics. IDC says its phablet estimates went from 3% to 21% yoy. That’s 5.6m to 54.8m! Sounds great, but that’s largely due to Samsung taking its Galaxy S3 from 4.7" to 5" with the Galaxy S4. See how one can create phenomenal "growth figures" simply by shifting an arbitrary boundary definition? 

 

That’s also what’s happening when IDC compares iPhones against 172 million cheap phone shipments. What’s next: do we start counting TV shipments in with tablets so the iPad’s share "goes down" even faster in the "screen market?"

 

IDC already includes lots of "toys" (the analyst’s word) in its tablet figures. Don’t willingly be fooled just because you like the sound of Apple losing. It doesn’t make it so.

post #72 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by dodger View Post
 

It appears you’ve forgotten to take into account Apple’s differed revenue model.  Apple discloses units, revenue and differed revenue.  None of it’s competitors, as far as I know, use a differed revenue model.  

 

It appears from the article you are using the total sales revenue for all phones and subtracting Apple’s realized revenue, without including their differed revenue for this year, to scry the actual number of Android phones sold.  A more accurate picture would be to also subtract Apple’s differed revenue as well as realized earnings from Android global earnings.  I'm guessing this would make things look even more dire for high end Android.

 

... but I could be wrong. 

 

Deferred revenue isn’t relevant because this isn’t a measurement of GAAP profitability. We are simply looking at where the buckets of money come from, solving for X because IDC doesn’t publicly report what X is. 

 

Apple’s contribution is their # of phones sold x ASP of those phones. Same for Android and everyone else, it’s just that Android spans from iPhone priced gear to sub $100 stuff, and market research lumps together very dissimilar things to create an impression that 81% of the market is something like a Galaxy S4, when that isn’t remotely true. 

post #73 of 164
Sales numbers reflect a moment in time, when each device was sold, and gives no sense of the prevalence of the population of that device model thereafter. As Apple has stressed and measuring sites have demonstrated, the real measure of a device population is evidence of usage, where Web and app metrics are much more telling. There, Apple devices dominate, where one has to wonder where all those other, sold devices went, or how usable they are.

Speculation is that large numbers of those cheap, "plastic" cellular phones are short-lived and/or minimally used, effectively representing a continual pipeline to landfills with a short ownership interval in between. In this view, sales numbers are almost meaningless in providing a sense of the significance of a given device model or class of device.
post #74 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewb123 View Post
 

 

You don't need to make a prediction for something that's already happened! 

 

Smartphone technology has already reached the point where a basic entry level device is 'good enough' at performing day to day tasks for most users.  It took PCs decades to reach that point. The bandwagon is already over for smartphones, move on.  I'm sure there will be something else for first world consumers to fixate on before long. 

 

Growing the accessibility of reasonably functioning 'good enough' smartphones to an increasingly wider market at ever shrinking price points is a good thing, why is it so difficult for so many people here see that?

 

In the early 80s there were people in who thought that a 640 KB DOS PC running 1-2-3 & Word Perfect had achieved the pinnacle of progress. Then the Mac came along, and ten years later all those DOS users were on Windows 95.

 

In the early 2000s there were people in who thought that a Pentium 4 Windows 2000 PC running Office and IE had achieved the pinnacle of progress. Then Mac OS X came along, and ten years later all those DOS users were on iPads.

 

But seriously, around 2000 Intel and Microsoft were befuddled trying to figure out how to get people to buy new expensive CPU hardware & Windows licenses because they couldn’t see how to sell anyone more stuff, because everyone seemed happy with their basic PCs. Look it up, they were trying to invent some sort of 3D standard for webpages just to burn processor cycles. 

 

Then Apple came along with iLife apps and FCP and promoted being able to do new things, with a desktop UI leveraging video game style graphics compositing. And Microsoft scrabbled to catch up, but was too late.

 

Same thing with every phone vendor when the iPhone appeared. And today, the iPhone’s only real competitor is a rewarmed version of Java/Linux. It is not a robust platform for the future. It’s junk.

post #75 of 164

First, the IDC report just represent how statistic can be made to tell a story which is just a lie. 

 

Next, nice analysis of picking apart the number and showing what it all really means.

 

More and more I see the numbers and what is happen, I think google somehow got everyone to buy in to their reality distortion field that if they blanket the earth with android products that everyone involved, (Manufactures, Developers, Service Providers, Content Owner and Website and Advertisers) would make money inspirit of making cheap stuff since market share always win.

 

Do anyone know for sure if Google shares any of the ad revenue with the Hardware Manufacture, Content Owers and Service Providers. I know Google shares ad $ with website sight to place google ads and such. I am wondering if google offer some sort of kick back to the Manufactures for any and all ads which show up on their device as well as through the service providers networks.

 

If Google was sharing incoming with everyone in the chain then it would make sense to dump as much free cheap stuff if you believe you would make it up over years as the Ad $ come rolling in. As we have read that is not happening since most users of an Android device never use the phone like intended.

 

I think what we will see, is a bunch of cheap Android stuff and no one making money except Google. I wonder how many time company are going to believe Google when they say trust us you will make money with our idea.

post #76 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by eponymous View Post
 

 

I wonder if you chime in on most of the other tech sites, where (they believe) Google has already won the smartphone wars with its 80% market share.  

 

Is it informative, or even intellectually honest, to compare the market shares of the iPhone and a piece of garbage phone from Pantech?  Of course not.  Then why do tech bloggers persist in doing so?  And why do you object to the author pointing out their persistent distortions?  

 

I sure hope Google hasn't 'won' the smartphone wars.  I hope nobody does for the foreseeable future- but that they all keep on trying.

 

Where am I objecting to the author?  If anything I immediately agree with him.  Android has 80ish percent market share.  Check, and agreed.  66% of those are low end phones.  Check, and agreed (though I don't agree they are 'junk').  Where's the problem?  If anything I'd accuse the author of rehashing and restating the obvious.  I would bet that neither of those statistics really surprise anyone, including the people that wrote articles about market share in the first place.

 

When you point out that even with the remaining numbers after those junk phones aren't included, Android still has more, the immediate response is, of course, 'well most of those non-junk phones are junk too!'   So if you're so hell bent on trying to make the argument pro Apple no matter what, why not just agree that 'No phone compares to Apple!'  That makes it easy.  Apple has 100% of the Apple market share.  Apple wins!!!!!!  Or change the topic to from one where Apple does win, such as profits- which are pretty darn important.  Apple wins there too!  I'll also agree that the more Android phones you choose not to count, the higher Apples market share gets.

 

Apple is doing very well in the high end segment and within that segment are doing better than the competition in many aspects, and certainly in the granddaddy of them all, profits!  That does not mean that the rest of the market doesn't still exist or should be ignored.

post #77 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacAir View Post
 

So people can realize hoe pathetic this editorial is:

 

http://9to5google.com/2013/11/13/motorola-makes-moto-g-official-at-international-online-unveiling/

 

In the Android world, 199$ can give you:

  • Great 720p 329ppi 4.5" display;
  • s400 SOC;
  • 1gb of ram;
  • 33% more talktime than the 5s;
  • Nice design and build quality;
  • Fantastic Vanilla Android, only surpassed by iOS7;
  • Guaranteed updates.
  • 16gb storage.

 

AI needs someone with a little more knowledge. I mean: "Go away", "trash", "junk"?

Not that I do not believe Motorola can make a good phone, but again they marketing to check list buyers, people who buy on price only and add up the check marks to see if it has more of something that other companies offer. Motorola is not really targeting Apple. They said it publicly they are not trying to take on the premium spaces, why because apple owns it with its entire ecosystem. Motorola is targeting Samsung in the mid range. There is no good solutions there, and Motorola is trying to compete in the middle which is kind of smart since there are lots of buyer and it is growing every year. The only question is will they success since their wagon is hitch to Android and we all see the data on Andriod and who well like it is for the everyday user.


Edited by Maestro64 - 11/14/13 at 9:43am
post #78 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacAir View Post
 

So people can realize hoe pathetic this editorial is:

 

http://9to5google.com/2013/11/13/motorola-makes-moto-g-official-at-international-online-unveiling/

 

In the Android world, 199$ can give you:

  • Great 720p 329ppi 4.5" display;
  • s400 SOC;
  • 1gb of ram;
  • 33% more talktime than the 5s;
  • Nice design and build quality;
  • Fantastic Vanilla Android, only surpassed by iOS7;
  • Guaranteed updates.
  • 16gb storage.

 

AI needs someone with a little more knowledge. I mean: "Go away", "trash", "junk"?

 

You are confusing a) phones that sold in this summer’s Q3 with b) a device Google just announced. You’re also assuming it will sell. 

 

It remains to be seen if Google can build this, if carriers will sell it, and how much Motorola will lose pushing these into the market. Notice that the Moto X failed miserably, just like every other Nexus-branded phone. Google isn’t great at hardware. 

 

However, it’s pretty important for Google to make this work, because next year Samsung will begin taking away its half of Android’s installed base to Tizen, and Google can’t really rely on LG, HTC, Sony and other Android licensees because they’re all losing money, and they already pay Microsoft for patent royalties so might just as well shift to Windows Phone (which has its own major disadvantages). 

 

So Google is really on the hook to make this work. And If the Moto G turns out successful and sells 100M units this year, Google will become the cheap alternative to the iPhone, and it will only lose most of its search profits to subsidize such a profitless phone distribution operation. But in the end, Google will have an installed base that begins to be comparable to the iPhone, but running the specs of iPhone 4 from 2010. If it can pull that off in 2014, it will only be 4 years behind. 

 

If it can’t, Android will be facing very serious problems. 

 

But go back to reading sites that tell you what IDC wants you to think: that Android is 81% of the "smartphone" market. 2014 will be such a surprise for you! It’s more exciting when you don’t see what’s coming. 

post #79 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesMac View Post
 

 

The relevance is that Samsung has more funds to reinvest back into the business as any first year business student could tell you.

 

Have you used those heated toilet seats with the dual spray jets?   I used those in Japan, damn they're better than what we have in the west!

 

You need to read the balance sheets and cash flow on apple and samsung again. Also, Samsung has been spending tremendous billions on R&D, advertising and capex and has less to show for that than Apple. As Jobs once said, if writing software was as easy as writing a check, Microsoft could do it.

 

And yes, every toilet in Japan has a bidet, even in the 7-11s. Usually with a chooshy-seat warmer, and a button that makes a rushing water sound so nobody can hear your business. But If you lift the seat and inspect, those water jets are usually quite filthy, and I wouldn’t really want that being sprayed back up on my nether-regions.  

post #80 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

How come there aren't articles constantly being written about how Porsche is losing market share to Kia and Toyota and how it's killing Porsche's automobile business. What is so darn important about platform market share? Most of the companies selling Android devices are barely making anything from all that huge amount of market share although there must be some companies selling decent products that consumers are happy to be using. Should it matter to anyone if Casio is selling more watches than, say, Movado, Tag Heuer or Rolex?
 

That's the point. Apple continues to be very successful in its chosen market. In general, you can't be both high-end of the market and market volume leader. Many people don't need, don't want or can't afford high-end so they buy something more modest, Apple only does high-end so they don't get those sales. It doesn't matter to Apple so long as they continue to dominate the high-end and take good margins from it - that's what success looks like.

 

Some of the criticism comes from short memories. Apple dominated all parts of the music player business with the iPod. The iPhone and iPad dominated their markets when they were new but competitors appeared and their market share slipped. I think the surprising thing is Apple's initial dominance, not the emergence of competitors successful particularly in the parts of the market where Apple chooses not to compete.

 

I would take the Mac, not the iPod, as the 'usual' model for Apple. A much cheaper/less capable device can manage some things adequately so there's a space for lower-end devices that Apple chooses not to sell. And that's rational: businesses are in business to make money (ie profit), selling product is just a difficult means to that end. So, given the choice of making many devices at tiny margins or fewer at sufficiently better margins to provide more profit overall, Apple's position looks pretty good.

OS X and iOS user

Reply

OS X and iOS user

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • IDC data shows 66% of Android's 81% smartphone share are junk phones selling for $215
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › IDC data shows 66% of Android's 81% smartphone share are junk phones selling for $215