or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's iPhone led 2013 US consumer smartphone sales with 45% share - NPD
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's iPhone led 2013 US consumer smartphone sales with 45% share - NPD

post #1 of 54
Thread Starter 
With more than 120 million smartphones sold in the U.S. in 2013, Apple's iPhone accounted for nearly half of those, taking a 45 percent share in its home market last year, new data released by the NPD Group on Thursday reveals.

NPD


The research firm's latest Mobile Phone Track shows that of 121 million smartphones sold last year in America, the iPhone accounted for 45 percent, making Apple the largest smartphone maker in the U.S. Overall smartphone sales were up 21 percent year over year.

The iPhone proved most popular among consumers earning $100,000 or more per year, while Samsung devices were more popular with those who earn less than $30,000.Apple's overall share was up slightly from 2012, when the company commanded a 44 percent share of the market. Second-place Samsung also saw it share gain slightly, from 24 percent in 2012 to 26 percent in 2013.

Lagging behind the two-horse race was LG, which represented 8 percent of smartphones sold in America last year. HTC took fourth with 6 percent, while Motorola came in fifth with 4 percent.

Apple's iPhone proved more popular among smartphone users who earn more than $100,000 per year, taking a 33 percent share among those buyers compared to Samsung's 18 percent. And Samsung's lower-priced options proved more popular than the iPhone for those who earn $60,000 or less in the U.S.

Still, NPD said that iPhone sales grew 64 percent among lower income customers who earn under $30,000 last year. However, that market segment accounted for just 20 percent of total 2013 iPhone sales.

"With the fastest growing segments of the industry in the lowest income demographics, both Apple and Samsung face challenges in 2014," said Stephen Baker, vice president of industry analysis at NPD. "For Samsung this demographic is likely to be the most competitive segment of the market in 2014 and they have a very high dependency on sales here. Apple has the opposite problem of gaining share in the fast growing entry-level market while still maintaining its position as the dominant supplier to affluent consumers."

Most of the mobile industry's growth seen in the U.S. in 2013 came from prepaid devices, which grew 68 percent last year, NPD said. Prepaid devices also accounted for 29 percent of the smartphone market, up from 14 percent in 2011.

While prepaid devices surged, postpaid devices still reign, accounting for 71 percent of handsets sold last year. Sales of postpaid devices increased by less than 10 percent in 2013.

The NPD Mobile Phone Track measures activities of U.S. consumers 18 or older who purchase a mobile phone or smartphone. The figures do not include corporate mobile phone purchases.

"In general, 2013 was a year of smartphone market stability for the U.S,," Baker said. "Overall industry growth was similar to that of 2012, and while the major hardware brands saw their shares increase marginally, the space between Apple and Samsung and the rest of the industry expanded once again."
post #2 of 54
they sold more than anyone else? that is terrible business- Wall Street will make sure they pay for such a poor, underwhelming performance.
post #3 of 54
Not only did Apple sell more, it earned more than the other mobile phone companies. Yes, Wall Street will find a reason to ding Apple's performance.
post #4 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by revenant View Post

they sold more than anyone else? that is terrible business- Wall Street will make sure they pay for such a poor, underwhelming performance.

Well, "obviously," their rate of growth has shrunk compared to Samsung, therefore, ipso facto, cogito ergo sum idiot, their stock value is wildly over -valued and a "market correction" will make it more in line with reality, since there is no room for growth, they're not making a cheaper iPhone, they charge too much, they're not open, they use a walled garden, and Mercury must be retrograde.

 

(wow ... I think I just sprained something trying to fit so much garbage into one sentence!)

post #5 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave MacLachlan View Post

Well, "obviously," their rate of growth has shrunk compared to Samsung, therefore, ipso facto, cogito ergo sum idiot, their stock value is wildly over -valued and a "market correction" will make it more in line with reality, since there is no room for growth, they're not making a cheaper iPhone, they charge too much, they're not open, they use a walled garden, and Mercury must be retrograde.

(wow ... I think I just sprained something trying to fit so much garbage into one sentence!)

I think you nailed it ... take an aspirin and go to bed for a rest you earned it. 1biggrin.gif
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #6 of 54
Quite impressive considering that their 3-4 year old products are still selling like hot cakes, the 4 and 4S still going strong, at lower and lower production cost... it speaks volumes about the customer loyalty that they have earned. The new line of 2014 products with iPhone 6, iPad Pro, iWatch/health device, iTV, Mac Pro etc will only propel their share of wallet further upwards, and then all this nonsense talk of "smartphone market share" can finally stop. It is not about phones anymore... AAPL is repositioning themselves behind the scene, but try and explain that to IDC, Gartner, NPD and friends...
post #7 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayTee View Post

Quite impressive considering that their 3-4 year old products are still selling like hot cakes, the 4 and 4S still going strong, at lower and lower production cost... it speaks volumes about the customer loyalty that they have earned. The new line of 2014 products with iPhone 6, iPad Pro, iWatch/health device, iTV, Mac Pro etc will only propel their share of wallet further upwards, and then all this nonsense talk of "smartphone market share" can finally stop. It is not about phones anymore... AAPL is repositioning themselves behind the scene, but try and explain that to IDC, Gartner, NPD and friends...
When 56% of your net sales are derived from smartphones directly then it is all about smartphones. As no one outside Apple knows what other products are coming and their potential income from them.
post #8 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by singularity View Post

When 56% of your net sales are derived from smartphones directly then it is all about smartphones. As no one outside Apple knows what other products are coming and their potential income from them.

Yes, most of Apple's eggs are in one basket.  A diversity of products is Sammy's strength. Though I'm not sure what share of Sammy's profits come from smartphones or TVs or toasters or vacuum cleaners.  (Or all-electric automobiles....) 

post #9 of 54
How much of Apple sale are related to American protectionism?

How much of Samsung no sale are related to American racism?

That would change the figures a lot.
post #10 of 54

the model today is lose money but grow sales, look what happen to Tesla, they continue to loose money but the sale grew and wall street award it with a 20% bump in their stock. 

 

As we all know Apple's got the formula all wrong, they need to loose more money than they make and buy things which will never generate a profit.


Edited by Maestro64 - 2/20/14 at 8:06am
post #11 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post

Not only did Apple sell more, it earned more than the other mobile phone companies. Yes, Wall Street will find a reason to ding Apple's performance.

No sooner were your thoughts expressed than they were brought to reality:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/162116/barclays-downgrades-rating-on-apple-stock-due-to-maturing-smartphone-market-tells-investors-to-step-aside

 

Barclays' rationale? Because Apple can't innovate anything new.  ROTFLOL

 

Quote:
Reitzes added that he's not sold on the idea that new Apple products, such as a smart watch or a TV, "could move the needle like new categories did in the old days." 

 

Those underperforming, unannounced products!

post #12 of 54
Quote:
 Still, NPD said that iPhone sales grew 64 percent among lower income customers who earn under $30,000 last year. However, that market segment accounted for just 20 percent of total 2013 iPhone sales.

"With the fastest growing segments of the industry in the lowest income demographics, both Apple and Samsung face challenges in 2014," said Stephen Baker, VP at NPD. "For Samsung this demographic is likely to be the most competitive segment of the market in 2014 and they have a very high dependency on sales here. Apple has the opposite problem of gaining share in the fast growing entry-level market while still maintaining its position as the dominant supplier to affluent consumers."

In other words, Samsung has to do everything it can to win this market [read: lower prices even more, - less profit equals WIN!] while Analysts will consider Apple  a failure if it doesn't gain market share in the lower incomes without losing share at the high end profit end- [Less profits per unit equal LOSE!].

 

In the end.  It's not even about phones.   it's about ecosystem.   The key balance that Apple has to maintain is that they need to capture the people who are looking towards their mobile ecosystem as a strategic partner, not a consumable expense, all the while grooming those people who can't afford the top of the line iProducts at this moment, but may in the future.

 

Which is why I feel age stratification is more valuable than income stratification for predicting/driving mobile phone strategy

Under 14 (mommy buying the phone)

14 < age <=18 (the 'don't care years' )

18 < age <=25 (no money years)

25 < age <=35 (growing income years)

35< age <=50  (stable income high expense)

> age 50           (max net income years

> age 65           (fixed income years)

 
 

Apple IIRC is winning the 35-50 space and is losing the over 65 space (big screen).

- This is why I think Apple is killing in the iPad space... 10" is the perfect sized computer for the older computer illiterate.

- And this is why after 5 years in the market, Apple will evolve to a larger phone... because it's over 50 demographics will demand it as they 'age out'  The 3GS is out...  The 5s will be the new 'base phone (in 6 months likely in plastic and called the 6c, with the 5c at the .99 phone subbed), it follows that a larger phone will drop in at the same price points, and lock in the leakage at the top end (2 form factors for another 4 years - a forever in today's mobility market).

 

The key space for Apple is winning the 25-35 space, as that

- yoy income growth is greatest during this time

- this defines the people who will most likely exploit iOS and mobility and integrate into their lives

    (you never forget your first love, your first text editor [TECO], and your first 'i bought this with some thought about purpose' mobile phone;-)

- establishes the entry point to the 35-50 space (which defines the under 14 space).

 

So for a prediction of the future... it's not about how much they earn, but when you capture them into the ecosystem for long term profit (40 years of iTunes Match?, an iPhone upgrade every 2 years, an iPad every 4?)

 

I personally don't want Apple competing in the 14-18 space, which is where I think cheap phones are really marketed.  the 18-25 market is the space where values opinions are formed (liberal vs conservative,  vegan vs paleo, Audi vs BMW, Sam Adams vs Fat Tire ,  Chandon vs Veuv Cliquot)... and 'value' should always be 'attainable' but differentiated from the mass produced crap that people who 'don't care' procure.

post #13 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post
 

In other words, Samsung has to do everything it can to win this market [read: lower prices even more, - less profit equals WIN!] while Analysts will consider Apple  a failure if it doesn't gain market share in the lower incomes without losing share at the high end profit end- [Less profits per unit equal LOSE!].

 

In the end.  It's not even about phones.   it's about ecosystem.   The key balance that Apple has to maintain is that they need to capture the people who are looking towards their mobile ecosystem as a strategic partner, not a consumable expense, all the while grooming those people who can't afford the top of the line iProducts at this moment, but may in the future.

 

Which is why I feel age stratification is more valuable than income stratification for predicting/driving mobile phone strategy

Under 14 (mommy buying the phone)

14 < age <=18 (the 'don't care years' )

18 < age <=25 (no money years)

25 < age <=35 (growing income years)

35< age <=50  (stable income high expense)

> age 50           (max net income years

> age 65           (fixed income years)

 
 

Apple IIRC is winning the 35-50 space and is losing the over 65 space (big screen).

- This is why I think Apple is killing in the iPad space... 10" is the perfect sized computer for the older computer illiterate.

- And this is why after 5 years in the market, Apple will evolve to a larger phone... because it's over 50 demographics will demand it as they 'age out'  The 3GS is out...  The 5s will be the new 'base phone (in 6 months likely in plastic and called the 6c, with the 5c at the .99 phone subbed), it follows that a larger phone will drop in at the same price points, and lock in the leakage at the top end (2 form factors for another 4 years - a forever in today's mobility market).

 

The key space for Apple is winning the 25-35 space, as that

- yoy income growth is greatest during this time

- this defines the people who will most likely exploit iOS and mobility and integrate into their lives

    (you never forget your first love, your first text editor [TECO], and your first 'i bought this with some thought about purpose' mobile phone;-)

- establishes the entry point to the 35-50 space (which defines the under 14 space).

 

So for a prediction of the future... it's not about how much they earn, but when you capture them into the ecosystem for long term profit (40 years of iTunes Match?, an iPhone upgrade every 2 years, an iPad every 4?)

 

I personally don't want Apple competing in the 14-18 space, which is where I think cheap phones are really marketed.  the 18-25 market is the space where values opinions are formed (liberal vs conservative,  vegan vs paleo, Audi vs BMW, Sam Adams vs Fat Tire ,  Chandon vs Veuv Cliquot)... and 'value' should always be 'attainable' but differentiated from the mass produced crap that people who 'don't care' procure.

 Good insight, however with the over 65 it is more than bigger screen, they need bigger button since their motor controls are not much better than the 2 to 3 yr old, look at kids toys, the older generation tend to revert. 

 

With that said I have seen more over 65 liking the ipad since it is easy to navigate and control, if even a big screen touch phone will not work for them.

post #14 of 54

I LIKE owning the same phone that rich people use!  Me and all of the billionaires are exactly the same because of the phone we use.  Nobody can deny that about all of us!

post #15 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayTee View Post

 It is not about phones anymore... AAPL is repositioning themselves behind the scene, but try and explain that to IDC, Gartner, NPD and friends...

Even if you deduct all of the iPhone profits, Apple is still totally undervalued.  It is not about phones anymore - Apple doesn't care about phone profits, that is all over.

post #16 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot View Post
 

No sooner were your thoughts expressed than they were brought to reality:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/162116/barclays-downgrades-rating-on-apple-stock-due-to-maturing-smartphone-market-tells-investors-to-step-aside

 

Barclays' rationale? Because Apple can't innovate anything new.  ROTFLOL

 

 

Those underperforming, unannounced products!

Yes, I saw the Barclay's downgrade soon after I wrote my response. I actually considered updating the response with... "Samsung shown to be gaining market share faster than Apple due to Apple's market share increasing by 1% from 44 to 45 while Samsung's market share increased by 2% from 24 to 26." Even though Apple is within striking distance of reaching 100 million iPhone sales in the USA, the apparently cannot do anything right.

post #17 of 54
Originally Posted by jpd514 View Post
That would change the figures a lot.

 

No, not in the slightest.

 

Now, xenophobia in South Korea itself, on the other hand…

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #18 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpd514 View Post

How much of Apple sale are related to American protectionism?

How much of Samsung no sale are related to American racism?

That would change the figures a lot.

Near Zero. The gen public doesn't care where its products are made.
post #19 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpd514 View Post

How much of Apple sale are related to American protectionism?

How much of Samsung no sale are related to American racism?

That would change the figures a lot.

My gut feel is :

-Very little, especially at the high end.  Samsung's current high end devices are not under any legal or tariff limits... those phones would by these counts be in the bargain basement sales bin (were Samsung is leading anyway)

 

-Very little (most racists I know [and I know a few... I live in the south, and work with a militarist crew] hate apple because of foxconn... almost none can explain where the Samsung or LG they use is made [it ain't made in Oklahoma], and those that bristle at the comparison come back with the argument that South Korea is an American Protectorate, therefore it's 'american made' by proxy, to allow their little brains to wrap around the fallacies of their ignorance).

 

- will change the figures by very little.      If you disagree, find us some facts to reinforce your strawman.

post #20 of 54

Why doesn't Apple simply built itself a search engine?  Wall Street says that Google has no competition and it would seem like a wide-open market where Apple could make some money by putting its own search engine on all Apple products as default.  Apple would then become more like Google of having a business that is just like becoming part of the internet.  If Google is seen as having unlimited growth in search then Apple should also get itself some unlimited growth instead of continuing as a no-growth, range bound company.  So far, everything Apple has tried to do to boost its share price has turned sour for shareholders.  Dividends and buybacks are shown to be useless.  A company without major market share always seems to get left for dead.  Apple is going to need to come out with a radical new product every year or the company is going to lose more and more shareholder value.  If Apple had been able to acquire Tesla, I believed that would have drastically changed Wall Street's view of Apple's non-existent future.

post #21 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by SudoNym View Post
 

Even if you deduct all of the iPhone profits, Apple is still totally undervalued.  It is not about phones anymore - Apple doesn't care about phone profits, that is all over.

I agree in general.. but it's about 'experience' which Apple believes starts with the handset/tablet/laptop/appliance.  It's still about 'phones' (pocket communications computers), in that Apple wants to make the net experience a quantum above everyone else... and that starts with the phone/pad/pod.

 

As for phone profits, they do care, only in the fact that they want to project/extract maximum value at the entrance to the ecosystem, and make the rest of it painless (the iTMS 'tax' is on the content/service owner side... not on the device owner's side).   When Apple says it want's these to run 'break even' it really means they want the innovation to come at no 'new cost' to the device user.   Thus, the 'profit' the handset/tablets brings funds the next revolution for the rest of the corporation... it funds the 'next big thing.'  (you think AppleTV profits are funding Apple's 'TV' efforts? hardly.)

post #22 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpd514 View Post

How much of Apple sale are related to American protectionism?

How much of Samsung no sale are related to American racism?

That would change the figures a lot.

Facts, not FUD.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #23 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

No, not in the slightest.

Now, xenophobia in South Korea itself, on the other hand…

Says he's in "Canada."
Guess they think all Americans are a bunch of racists.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #24 of 54

I disagree. Apple needs to be betting on the future of the industry. The industry changes at such a rate now that you cannot afford to be left behind. I think the way the industry is headed now  is much different then just small devices. Apple will not survive in the long run if they just play a small part in the tech industry. Apple needs to branch out and takes chances with future. Take a look at Google's way of business. They have there hands in so many investments for the future that there is a sure way at hitting something big and dominating the industry. Look at Google Fiber. 100 times faster then regular cable modems. They invest in car technology in self driving cars. They invest in medical science technology. If any or one of those pays off it could pay big time.

 

I think Apple has its head up there asses. I mean this seriously because in the technology of the future is not going be just small devices. iPads iPhones and iPods iwatches are not going to cut it. Personally I would rather see iGlasss or Apple Glasses. Make that connect to your iphone so you have iphone functionality to me is much more appealing.

 

Again I believe Apple needs to really start looking outside the box. Remember the I-device was a new technology at the time when it came out and it changed the world. The next big thing is not a device. To change the world it needs to be something new oustide of devices.

Apple has the money to do this but instead Tim Cooks listens to Carl Ichan and basically gives away its money instead of investing in the future. What a waste. All those profits given away for what? Stock price. Stock price hasn't even moved and who the cares about stock price if Apple isn't making great products. Steve Jobs was right: Don't worry about the stock price and just focus on making great products. The Stock price will reflect that. This was their main concern in in the 1990's and look where it got them. A waste. The television commercial "made in Cupertino California" would never have been made if Jobs was at the helm. That adds only message was praising itself. What an embarrassment as an Apple user and fan. Apple has had its head right up their asses with that ad. Tim Cook is not a great CEO.

 

And this is coming from someone who cares emensly about Apple. I have used Apple products since the Apple II in 1979. So don't tell me I am an Apple basher. I am just looking at this with common sense and curve of the industry and its future.

 

Get with it Apple. Before its to late.

post #25 of 54
Originally Posted by Apple/// View Post
Take a look at Google's way of business.


A shining example of what not to do.

 
They have there hands in so many investments for the future that there is a sure way at hitting something big and dominating the industry.

 

You don’t comprehend Apple in the slightest.

 

I mean this seriously because in the technology of the future is not going be just small devices.

 

Sure it won’t¡

 

Again I believe Apple needs to really start looking outside the box.

 

You’ve lost it.

 

The next big thing is not a device.

 

Which you know because… Ah, you don’t.

 

Tim Cooks listens to Carl Ichan


Uh…

 

The television commercial "made in Cupertino California" would never have been made if Jobs was at the helm.

 

Rule #46.

 

And this is coming from someone who cares emensly about Apple. I have used Apple products since the Apple II in 1979. So don't tell me I am an Apple basher.

 

Rule #4.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #26 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post
 

Why doesn't Apple simply built itself a search engine?  Wall Street says that Google has no competition and it would seem like a wide-open market where Apple could make some money by putting its own search engine on all Apple products as default.  Apple would then become more like Google of having a business that is just like becoming part of the internet.  If Google is seen as having unlimited growth in search then Apple should also get itself some unlimited growth instead of continuing as a no-growth, range bound company.  So far, everything Apple has tried to do to boost its share price has turned sour for shareholders.  Dividends and buybacks are shown to be useless.  A company without major market share always seems to get left for dead.  Apple is going to need to come out with a radical new product every year or the company is going to lose more and more shareholder value.  If Apple had been able to acquire Tesla, I believed that would have drastically changed Wall Street's view of Apple's non-existent future.

One would argue that iOS is becoming the 'search engine major domo' picking the best source of info based on what you are 'looking for'

 

Both Apple and Google are driving context awareness into their mobile devices and OSes.

 

As for 'new product every year or it will lose [Wall Street defined] shareholder value....' I think your definition of 'success' is different than Apple's.

To Apple, success is the creation of a long term impact on the human experience that transcends time, one that rivals Einstein's Theories, Newton's laws, the Roman aquaducts, the wheel, the knife, the domesticated horse.   And to maintain enough market presence to drive those ideas forward to continually change the way we do things (more a GE, but with the initial smarts of Tesla - the man, not the company).

 

[Note: I'm FORMERLY an AAPL investor]

post #27 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot View Post

Yes, most of Apple's eggs are in one basket.  A diversity of products is Sammy's strength. Though I'm not sure what share of Sammy's profits come from smartphones or TVs or toasters or vacuum cleaners.  (Or all-electric automobiles....) 

While it is technically true that Apple has most of its eggs in one basket, this is not because Apple does not have a diverse range of products and services. (Though certainly not as diverse as Samsung.) Apple's "problem" is that it has one product that is wildly successful compared to its other products and services. But some of those other products and services (iPad, iTunes) are market-leaders in their own right.
post #28 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

 

As for 'new product every year or it will lose [Wall Street defined] shareholder value....' I think your definition of 'success' is different than Apple's.

To Apple, success is the creation of a long term impact on the human experience that transcends time, one that rivals Einstein's Theories, Newton's laws, the Roman aquaducts, the wheel, the knife, the domesticated horse.   And to maintain enough market presence to drive those ideas forward to continually change the way we do things (more a GE, but with the initial smarts of Tesla - the man, not the company).

 

[Note: I'm FORMERLY an AAPL investor]

 

 

Couldnt agree more. Google is a model of laying down a foundation for the future. They invest in technologies that will one day become common place. These things are set in motion and some of them will hit big. (self driving cars for instance)

 

I think Apple needs to think more outside the box. Devices are not going to soley cut it as a future for a heavy technology company. Look at Microsoft as a company that didn't innovate and didn't take seriously the future of the technology. They got left behind. Could happen to Apple if the don't start to seriously consider the future of what the computer industry will mean 10  and 20 years from now.

 

Google's stock price in a large part reflects the future investments that they make. They are setting a that future looks like a sure way to become big some day. That's why investors like it so much and its price is driven so high. Take Amazon for instance. They are doing things that no one ever expected and their stock price high for that company.

 

Apples stock price reflects the future of the company.

 

Tesla for example stock price at 200, because investors see a big and bright profitable future on the next 5 to 10 years and beyond.

 

See my post above.

post #29 of 54
Note: the Apple III failed.
post #30 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Note: the Apple III failed.

 

I am am aware of this. But you make no reply to my comments.
post #31 of 54
This is a discussion board for sharing opinions, not repeating dry facts ad nauseum.

Apple III, I think you're right in that Apple need to be thinking bigger in terms of ecosystem or they risk being nipped at from all sides. They have great command of the current digital hubs, but there is only so much more expansion space within those walls, and their rivals are getting into much broader games, the living room, the road, and others. If the rivals build momentum in other areas then Apple could become vulnerable at the core. Apple aren't too late; it's quite disappointing how their competitors seem unable to deliver killer products that can dominate their sectors, but Apple can't afford to wait until they do, once a product gains traction is can be hard to unseat.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #32 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

This is a discussion board for sharing opinions, not repeating dry facts ad nauseum.

Apple III, I think you're right in that Apple need to be thinking bigger in terms of ecosystem or they risk being nipped at from all sides. They have great command of the current digital hubs, but there is only so much more expansion space within those walls, and their rivals are getting into much broader games, the living room, the road, and others. If the rivals build momentum in other areas then Apple could become vulnerable at the core. Apple aren't too late; it's quite disappointing how their competitors seem unable to deliver killer products that can dominate their sectors, but Apple can't afford to wait until they do, once a product gains traction is can be hard to unseat.


Yes. Completely agree.

post #33 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple/// View Post

I am am aware of this. But you make no reply to my comments.

It's too long for my ADD. But I do note you don't know Apple at all. In recent history, Apple has always looked outside the box. It always is looking to skate to where the puck will be. You compare to Google, they are using a shotgun approach to research. None of these external projects have amounted to anything. They are mainly using them for PR. Meanwhile Apple is quietly doing what it does best: produce amazing products. It will release new products when it seems ready. Fuk the competition. Why are you so worried about them. They had years to dev and release new items but didn't until Apple showed them the way. Sure, one of them could produce the next great thing. But I'll always bet on Apple.
post #34 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpd514 View Post

How much of Apple sale are related to American protectionism?
How much of Samsung no sale are related to American racism? ...
On that note it is worth noting that Samsung is suing Dyson for tarnishing their image.
Seems they may be trying to stem the tide that came from those more clever court cases.
In fact its so copycat Apple might have a claim against Dyson for prior art.
1hmm.gif

Outside of the US the iPhone has often died a death so marketing is certainly all a perception thing.
Edited by aBeliefSystem - 2/20/14 at 11:32am
post #35 of 54
Originally Posted by jpd514 View Post

It's alarming. Shocking.

 

Your beliefs? Yeah, pretty much. How could someone be so deluded?

 

Originally Posted by aBeliefSystem View Post
On that note it is worth noting that Samsung is suing Dyson for tarnishing their image.

 

Who’d Dyson steal from so blatantly that Samsung’s scared their title will be usurped? :lol:

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #36 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


It's too long for my ADD. But I do note you don't know Apple at all. In recent history, Apple has always looked outside the box. It always is looking to skate to where the puck will be. You compare to Google, they are using a shotgun approach to research. None of these external projects have amounted to anything. They are mainly using them for PR. Meanwhile Apple is quietly doing what it does best: produce amazing products. It will release new products when it seems ready. Fuk the competition. Why are you so worried about them. They had years to dev and release new items but didn't until Apple showed them the way. Sure, one of them could produce the next great thing. But I'll always bet on Apple.

 

I disagree with you. History has shown that technology changes and it changes quickly as time has progressed. We have now had 6 plus years of the device era. Steve Jobs has been quoted as saying that the industry "changes" every 10 years and I tend to agree with him. in '76 the Apple I. In 84 the mac and the gui.  In 94' the world wide web. In 2004 the proliferation of the cell phone and beginngs of the smart phone. Yes more idevices will come in the next few years but Apple should not place themselves in a disadvantageous place. One day we will wake up by a world that is dominated by Google because think in such broad terms outside the box. This is hugely different then the boxed in and limited apple ecosystem. There is just not that much growth in the long run and who know if Apple will be able to lead the industry with the next great device. If they don't they will shrink as a company. If they think outside the box they have more of chance to dominate the industry and create growth influence. Apple has more money then anyone in the industry and should spend their money and take risks instead of Mr. Cook listening to Ichan and giving money away that has no effect on the stock price. Ichan only pushed for the dividend and buy back for his own stake.

 

Personlly I think Apple should look at buying Time Warner.

post #37 of 54
I agree.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #38 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

And if the opinion is wrong, do you expect it to stand unchallenged?

Opinions are neither right nor wrong.
"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 #39 of 54
Originally Posted by Apple/// View Post

Personlly I think Apple should look at buying Time Warner.

 

For what purpose? To what end? What would that give Apple?

 

Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
Opinions are neither right nor wrong.
 

Don’t give me that BS. Of course opinions can be wrong.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #40 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


It's too long for my ADD. But I do note you don't know Apple at all. In recent history, Apple has always looked outside the box. It always is looking to skate to where the puck will be. You compare to Google, they are using a shotgun approach to research. None of these external projects have amounted to anything. They are mainly using them for PR. Meanwhile Apple is quietly doing what it does best: produce amazing products. It will release new products when it seems ready. Fuk the competition. Why are you so worried about them. They had years to dev and release new items but didn't until Apple showed them the way. Sure, one of them could produce the next great thing. But I'll always bet on Apple.

 

I missed what you had said in your post. I do know Apple. I know that is how they do business. Apple Doesn't have to be a company like google with the "shotgun" analogy. And that is a good analogy by the way. But I think they need to think outside the box just a little bit more.

 

Time Warner would be give them room to shake up the cable TV industry.

 

Apple should have pandered the iOS technology to all car manufactures in my opinion much sooner. Google is gaining much ground in that area.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Apple's iPhone led 2013 US consumer smartphone sales with 45% share - NPD
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's iPhone led 2013 US consumer smartphone sales with 45% share - NPD