or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple on pace to sell record 39M iPhones in June quarter, survey finds
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple on pace to sell record 39M iPhones in June quarter, survey finds - Page 2

post #41 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

 

Market share was ALWAYS in context with the top end.

 

No one here was bragging about market share of the iPhone vs Feature phones in 2008-2012.  Basically the $50 smart phone is taking the place of the feature phone.

 

So are you telling me a $50 phone sale should be treated the same as a $700 phone?

Even though the $50 phone yields $0 profit?

Even though the $50 phone yields $0 profit for app makers?

Even though an iPhone user spends $200+ a year buying Apps/Music/Movies?

Even though an iPhone user had a great chance of buying other Apple products like a Mac?

Hard to take you seriously.

 

It like comparing Louis Vutton luxury bag sales (Apple) to trash bags ($50 android phone).

 



When a $200 phone can do pretty much the same thing has a $700 iphone it becomes a problem...

 

Can a $200 phone provide an easy and secure payment system?

Can a $200 phone control you home with HomeKit?

Can a $200 phone tract your health like HealthKit?

 

No.No.No.

 

And do you seriously think a person who buys a $200 phone will by apps, music, and video's?  I don't think so. 

 

Apple will continue to add software, services, and features in the iPhone that blow away a $200 phone.

 

Those with $$$ will continue to pick iPhone.

 

Your $200 example is like saying people will all buy $12k Kia cars since they basically do the same thing as a $25k Camry.  I don't think so.  People keep their phones for 2+ years.  Do you seriously think someone who makes decent money is worry about paying $10 more a month for an iPhone vs a crap Android?  Especially when their data plan is costing $80 a month?

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 #42 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


But, amazingly enough, iPhone sales slip during the year, to fall to a low the last quarter before the new models come out.


And also amazingly, they spike for the Christmas shopping quarter.

 

Looking at the raw numbers and claiming one effect causes it all is a red herring. Apple knows when people shop for new electronics (Q4) so they time their release to maximize that effect. People know that they will release then (your point) but Apple (and all companies) know when people spend less on their products. It's a symbiotic relationship that can't be explained away just because the data fits your PoV.

post #43 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

 

Market share was ALWAYS in context with the top end.

 

No one here was bragging about market share of the iPhone vs Feature phones in 2008-2012.  Basically the $50 smart phone is taking the place of the feature phone.

 

So are you telling me a $50 phone sale should be treated the same as a $700 phone?

Even though the $50 phone yields $0 profit?

Even though the $50 phone yields $0 profit for app makers?

Even though an iPhone user spends $200+ a year buying Apps/Music/Movies?

Even though an iPhone user had a great chance of buying other Apple products like a Mac?

Hard to take you seriously.

 

It like comparing Louis Vutton luxury bag sales (Apple) to trash bags ($50 android phone).

 



When a $200 phone can do pretty much the same thing has a $700 iphone it becomes a problem...

That's been the case for 7 years yet iPhones are still selling shit tons.
post #44 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

 

Market share was ALWAYS in context with the top end.

 

No one here was bragging about market share of the iPhone vs Feature phones in 2008-2012.  Basically the $50 smart phone is taking the place of the feature phone.

 

So are you telling me a $50 phone sale should be treated the same as a $700 phone?

Even though the $50 phone yields $0 profit?

Even though the $50 phone yields $0 profit for app makers?

Even though an iPhone user spends $200+ a year buying Apps/Music/Movies?

Even though an iPhone user had a great chance of buying other Apple products like a Mac?

Hard to take you seriously.

 

It like comparing Louis Vutton luxury bag sales (Apple) to trash bags ($50 android phone).

 



When a $200 phone can do pretty much the same thing has a $700 iphone it becomes a problem...

 

Programmers will go where the money goes. Apple continues to make the environment better for developers to make money where Android does not.

iOS 8 will work all the way back to the 4s, and will probably hit 80-90% saturation on their phones, which makes developers' jobs easier. When you see the stats on how much web traffic there is between iOS and Android (which is the most basic of uses on smartphones) there is no doubt that people who buy more expensive phones do more with their phones.

Putting all your eggs in the market share basket (singular "share" because it is share of the market - just a little help since you are non-native English speaking) is not seeing the forest for the trees.

 

Yes, market share can be important, but you have to look at the situation as a whole and not just concentrate on the one tree that isn't doing quite as well as the others in the forest.

post #45 of 63

IN other News:

 

Louis Vutton is Doomed.  Losing Market share fast.

 

Trash bag company Glad has reported to sell 60,000,000 bags last quarter.  Louis Vutton only has a 5% share of the bag segment.

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 #46 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The first iPhone was a featurephone, it wasn't until the second year that it became a smartphone.

 

Really?!! You keep twisting the meaning of 'smartphone' and 'apps' to meet your peculiar definitions, which are themselves invented to support your view that low-end Androids are smartphones while the high-end iPhone was not. I guess that makes you a 'feature-person', as opposed to a 'smart-person'.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot View Post
 

And I'm saying that an iPhone 5s is a smartphone, even if the user doesn't download anything, and keeps it in "airplane mode" ....

 

+1

post #47 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by clayder View Post

Quote:

the problem is the definition of "smartphone"...Most of the growth over the last few years is coming from feature phones that are now considered "smartphones". 
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

A big problem is in the definition of "Android". Most numbers include the AOSP OS phones that are at least, and likely more than half the Android market's sales. Whether that should be true is difficult to say, but I don't think it is. Nevertheless, it's a perception problem that needs to be addressed.

If both of the above are not enough to inflate the "Android" numbers, there are the non-existent Samsung phone shipments that never happened, AND all the "white box" phones that analysts estimate and add to the android phone mix of which there are no trace of ever being made or sold.
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #48 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The first iPhone was a featurephone, it wasn't until the second year that it became a smartphone.

While I understand where you are coming from with that statement, and in some sense you are correct. However, the earlier smart phones I looked at, such as those running the MS OS, were so near-impossible to use (and full of lag) that they were quickly replaced with the iPhone.

I remember having a sense back during the first year that the iPhone was more capable than the leading "smart phones" of the day. I can't remember exactly though, whether it was the 2008 version of the iPhone that really took off, but it does seem that the 2007 iPhone really disrupted the market and to do so it would have had to steal a chunk of the existing "smart phone" market. Not what I'd expect from an expensive "feature phone."

That first year Apple's iPhone was attacked by so many, and accused in so many was of being deficient (too expensive, no real keyboard, etc.) but I don't recall anyone saying it wasn't a "smart phone." When all is said, I may be suffering from selective memory, but that's how I recall those early iPhone days.
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #49 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot View Post
 

 

Yes, I used the term "interwebs" in a mocking sense, when referring to those unsophisticated users who are generally awkward with their computers.  

 

 

It immediately reminded me of Newhart in The Big Bang Theory.

 

"Is, is that an... internet?"

post #50 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Explain to me EXACTLY how Apple can keep up with the broad market that is selling $50 smartphones?

That's like expecting Ferrarri to sell as many $250k cars as Toyota sells $20k Corrolla's.

That has little to do with the price of phones. The entire market for smartphones is still growing, and markets where $50, or in reality, mostly $100-300 smartphones are sold will, or are moving up, as in China. It's not impossible by any means.
post #51 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

What on EARTH are you spewing?

What market are you speaking of?  Are you talking about $500+ smartphone market or $100+?

If you are talking high end, Apple is DOMINATING it.  Apple sold about 150M high end phones last year and Samsung (the only other vendor that sells a decent amount of high end phones) could not even crack 90M.  Lets give the other highend vendors 10M sales last year.  That still means Apple sold 60% of high end phones in 2013.

In Jan-Mar2014 Apple sold almost 44M million phones.  In other words they sold almost half of the phones Samsung sold in an ENTIRE YEAR in THREE MONTHS.  That was grow of 18% unit sales year over year.  With Apr-Jun quarter being the first full quarter of ChinaMobile sales I expect sales to continue to DESTROY Samsung's high end.  Apple could very well sell 200M phones in 2014 and have 70% of the high end market.

Bottom line is Apple does not give a crap about sales of $99 phones.  Such users don't buy Apps, Music, Video's, ect.  And probably are not buying an iPad, Mac, or Apple TV. 

Don't be insulting. I'll pull your plug.

I'm not talking about $99 phones. In case you haven't noticed, estimates for this quarter, aside from the one in the article, are still up by a fair amount. If somehow Apple manages 39 million, that will exceed the industry growth for the past couple of quarters, so someone thinks it's possible.
post #52 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I'm not concerned with record sales. I'm concerned with what the percentage of increase is. Apple needs to at least keep pace with industry sales, and preferably keep ahead of it. It will be good if Apple's sales this quarter sets a record, no doubt. But it's a competitive landscape.



Apple had a very good May, according to reports, better than they've had for several years. I hope this June will be the same.



The thing that set the stock up for such a recent rise wasn't stock buybacks as some would like to have us think, but rather the very good last quarter, and information about Apple's competitiveness since then. The WWDC has added to that with some major announcements that weren't expected, and announcements that were very helpful to the enterprise.



If Apple can have another great quarter again, in which they beat average industry growth, the stock will be on more secure grounds for further growth. And if the new products, that look very good, from what we've been hearing, sell as well as thought, then Apple will be definitely back on track.

 



since Apple is actually losing market shares, its not keeping up. That being said, the iphone 6 may changed this, especially if the iphone 5c see a major drop in price.

The last quarter ipad sales worries me. This is a sector where Apple is losing big chunks of market shares.

Apple is my doing what it thinks it needs to do to maintain and even increase their marketshare. The bigger screens are expected to help.
post #53 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot View Post

Okay, I stand corrected on Symbian, but I think it's a bit rich of you to say that  I'm playing at semantics in your previous reply to me, where you wrote:

Because in fact your distinction also relies upon semantics " it did become one once the App Store opened, and iOS 2 came out". I think these semantics are very crux of our disagreement.  You're saying the iPhone 1 was not a smartphone until it had a software upgrade and downloadable apps became available.  I'm saying the device was a smartphone all along, even if the user never went to iOS2 or downloaded any apps.  Since the iPhone 1 had all the hardware and programming necessary to upgrade the OS and download software, it was, in my eyes, a smartphone.  


And I'm saying that an iPhone 5s is a smartphone, even if the user doesn't download anything, and keeps it in "airplane mode" (i.e., software is blocked from downloading anything).  And a handgun is a handgun, even if there are no bullets in it, and it's never been fired.

And I'm not alone in this assessment, I guess.  Quoting the infamous Wikipedia:
Furthermore, I suppose the iPod touch was a "smartpod".  

And I have now reconsidered my LG840G to be a cheap and inexpensive basic smartphone, because it can download java apps.  Thank you for the civil debate.   1smile.gif

It isn't semantics at all. While you could run that software on those other phones, because it was possible, it wasn't possible to run third party software on the first iPhone that first year at all. I'm seeing a few people here being upset about my saying that the iPhone wasn't a smartphone that first year, but they obviously forget the arguments about that very thing right here, in the press, and the financial pages. The argument was laid to rest when the 2nd generation of OS came out the next year. Then Apple opened it up, and it became a real smartphone.

The first model had the potential of being a smartphone, but what if Apple hadn't decided to open an App Store, redo the OS so that third party apps could be bought and installed, and this remained true to this day?
post #54 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

I don't see how 600,000,000 itunes accounts with credit card numbers is endangering the entire ecosystem. And growing. They are adding 500,000 users a day.

1 Apple user > 20 Android users who don't buy anything.

I'm sorry I'd rather have 600,000,000 of the riches customers instead of 2 billion customers who can hardly afford a data plan.

800 million.

But you're making my argument for me. There's been a lot of talk about Apple having it's own payments system. Paypal has already approached Apple about being the payment provider. Other large credit card companies, and banks, are nervous.

Why do you think that is? Because Apple has 50 million accounts? 100 million? No, it's because they're approaching a billion. The only company that has more now, is VISA, and Apple is growing faster.

Size does matter, and so does growth.
post #55 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

800 million.

But you're making my argument for me. There's been a lot of talk about Apple having it's own payments system. Paypal has already approached Apple about being the payment provider. Other large credit card companies, and banks, are nervous.

Why do you think that is? Because Apple has 50 million accounts? 100 million? No, it's because they're approaching a billion. The only company that has more now, is VISA, and Apple is growing faster.

Size does matter, and so does growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Wrong. Usage market share is more important than shipment market share. Devs care about who is using smartphones than who has them. If usage drops to single digits, yea Apple will be in trouble. Then again iOS apps can be used on all idevices. Why do people forget that?

The iPhone is most definitely a smartphone. Deny it all you want, but you won't change history.

Just saying "wrong" doesn't make it so. And, of course, the iPhone IS a smartphone. I never said that it wasn't. But that first year, one of the major defining things of a smartphone wasn't present, and lots of people were saying that it would never happen. I'm on the record as going against the tide, here, and in other places, in saying that Apple would allow third party apps. Others were trying to parse SJ,s words as meaning that the iPhone would just be able to use HTML apps, but I saw it differently. While he was pushing those, he said in a news conference, that the next iPhone and OS would "make everybody happy". I went around, to a lot of derision, here and in other places, to say that he meant third party apps would be supported, boy did the Apple fanatics flame me, worse than now 1tongue.gif but I was right.

Now, marketshare vs usage share. They are different, but each depends on the other. Indeed, usage share is a direct result of marketshare, but not the other way around.

So if usage share is 20% and marketshare is 20% consistently, then usage share remains the same over time. That's pretty obvious.

But if usage share is 20% and marketshare is 40%, that means that usage share will follow, particularly if marketshare remains high. Eventually, if marketshare remains 40% over time, usage share will approach 40% as well.

But again, if usage share is 20% and marketshare is 10%, and that remains true over time, the usage share will approach 10%.

So pointing to usage share while ignoring marketshare is fruitless. Apple has has an increasing usage share here in the USA because marketshare has been going up. That's the way it works.
post #56 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Can a $200 phone provide an easy and secure payment system?
Can a $200 phone control you home with HomeKit?
Can a $200 phone tract your health like HealthKit?

No.No.No.

And do you seriously think a person who buys a $200 phone will by apps, music, and video's?  I don't think so. 

Apple will continue to add software, services, and features in the iPhone that blow away a $200 phone.

Those with $$$ will continue to pick iPhone.

Your $200 example is like saying people will all buy $12k Kia cars since they basically do the same thing as a $25k Camry.  I don't think so.  People keep their phones for 2+ years.  Do you seriously think someone who makes decent money is worry about paying $10 more a month for an iPhone vs a crap Android?  Especially when their data plan is costing $80 a month?

A lot of what you're saying here has little to do with the price of the phone, at least at the $200 you mentioned. While it's true that Apple is working on those projects for iOS and OS X, it's not true for Android manufacturers. They don't need to spend the money to do that. Google does that for them, and that's an advantage they have, that is, the ability to hook into systems without having to pay for the R&D and other major costs.

So, it's not so simple.
post #57 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrboba1 View Post


And also amazingly, they spike for the Christmas shopping quarter.

Looking at the raw numbers and claiming one effect causes it all is a red herring. Apple knows when people shop for new electronics (Q4) so they time their release to maximize that effect. People know that they will release then (your point) but Apple (and all companies) know when people spend less on their products. It's a symbiotic relationship that can't be explained away just because the data fits your PoV.

Yes. That's been the sales slide for the iPhone ever since Apple went to holiday sales for the iPhone to counter declining iPod sales. But my POV is exactly that! I have no quarrel with it. But that's why we look at YOY numbers, to compare with the same quarter the year before the year before that, etc. When sales increases slow, YOY, then we see that something is happening. Quarter to quarter numbers are very interesting as well, because we can see is they're following the expected trend, from those YOY numbers, or bucking that trend. Last quarter, iPhone sale bucked the trend upwards, and iPad sales bucked the trend downwards. Both are useful to know.
post #58 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by spock1234 View Post

Really?!! You keep twisting the meaning of 'smartphone' and 'apps' to meet your peculiar definitions, which are themselves invented to support your view that low-end Androids are smartphones while the high-end iPhone was not. I guess that makes you a 'feature-person', as opposed to a 'smart-person'.  

+1

Me? Really? I'm not twisting anything. Third party apps are a defining feature of smartphones, like it or not. Some higher end featurephones could download a VERY limited number of apps that the manufacturer, or carrier wrote for them, but that was all. It didn't really count..

Why don't you supply so e definition of what a smartphone is? No, not YOUR definition, but something better known. See if apps are a part of that. And no, I'm not talking about early 1990's phones that the manufacturer called a smartphone, but rather what we know as smartphones with the Blackberry, Palm, Symbian, Windows mobile, by the time the iPhone came out. All of those phones could download third party apps.

Your rather dumb swipe at me at the end of the post was uncalled for, and so don't do it again. If your arguments are so feeble so as to fail to hold up, an insult never makes that argument stronger. It just shows your lack if ability to make it stronger.

Theres an unwritten (and sometimes a written) rule on web sites that basically says to not insult the mods.
post #59 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

While I understand where you are coming from with that statement, and in some sense you are correct. However, the earlier smart phones I looked at, such as those running the MS OS, were so near-impossible to use (and full of lag) that they were quickly replaced with the iPhone.

I remember having a sense back during the first year that the iPhone was more capable than the leading "smart phones" of the day. I can't remember exactly though, whether it was the 2008 version of the iPhone that really took off, but it does seem that the 2007 iPhone really disrupted the market and to do so it would have had to steal a chunk of the existing "smart phone" market. Not what I'd expect from an expensive "feature phone."

That first year Apple's iPhone was attacked by so many, and accused in so many was of being deficient (too expensive, no real keyboard, etc.) but I don't recall anyone saying it wasn't a "smart phone." When all is said, I may be suffering from selective memory, but that's how I recall those early iPhone days.

Yes, some of the current, at the time the iPhone came out, smartphones were hard to use. Win Mobile was terrible. I remember a lot of reviews of smartphones using it, where the reviewer would say that while the hardware was great, it was brought down by Win Mobile.

Even the first version of the iPhone, sans apps, was a better phone than the others out there, and the second year, it was much better.
post #60 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


Just saying "wrong" doesn't make it so. And, of course, the iPhone IS a smartphone. I never said that it wasn't. But that first year, one of the major defining things of a smartphone wasn't present, and lots of people were saying that it would never happen. I'm on the record as going against the tide, here, and in other places, in saying that Apple would allow third party apps. Others were trying to parse SJ,s words as meaning that the iPhone would just be able to use HTML apps, but I saw it differently. While he was pushing those, he said in a news conference, that the next iPhone and OS would "make everybody happy". I went around, to a lot of derision, here and in other places, to say that he meant third party apps would be supported, boy did the Apple fanatics flame me, worse than now 1tongue.gif but I was right.

Now, marketshare vs usage share. They are different, but each depends on the other. Indeed, usage share is a direct result of marketshare, but not the other way around.

So if usage share is 20% and marketshare is 20% consistently, then usage share remains the same over time. That's pretty obvious.

But if usage share is 20% and marketshare is 40%, that means that usage share will follow, particularly if marketshare remains high. Eventually, if marketshare remains 40% over time, usage share will approach 40% as well.

But again, if usage share is 20% and marketshare is 10%, and that remains true over time, the usage share will approach 10%.

So pointing to usage share while ignoring marketshare is fruitless. Apple has has an increasing usage share here in the USA because marketshare has been going up. That's the way it works.

Yes, I meant the first iPhone. I didn't mean to say you thought otherwise.

The definition of smartphone is arbitrary. Feature phones can install third party apps but it is not easy. That doesn't mean they are smartphones.
Smart phones don't live in a vacuum. Apple's market share of all cell phones is increasing if you want to play that game.
Again Apple has never had the majority of "smartphone" market share. It hasn't hurt them one bit.
post #61 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Yes, I meant the first iPhone. I didn't mean to say you thought otherwise.

The definition of smartphone is arbitrary. Feature phones can install third party apps but it is not easy. That doesn't mean they are smartphones.
Smart phones don't live in a vacuum. Apple's market share of all cell phones is increasing if you want to play that game.
Again Apple has never had the majority of "smartphone" market share. It hasn't hurt them one bit.

Again, I've not said anything about Apple either having, or needing a majority of marketshare, or usage share, though I doubt any of us here would turn that down. My concern is that worldwide, their share is just 15%. If that continues to go down, it will reach a point where there will be problems.

That's all I'm saying about it, and I don't understand why people don't see that as a problem.
post #62 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


Again, I've not said anything about Apple either having, or needing a majority of marketshare, or usage share, though I doubt any of us here would turn that down. My concern is that worldwide, their share is just 15%. If that continues to go down, it will reach a point where there will be problems.

That's all I'm saying about it, and I don't understand why people don't see that as a problem.

 

But some of us (at least) are saying that this "shrinking market share" is a false flag, for lack of a better term. What good is market share that gives you no profit? And when people buy these no profit phones and spend no money for developers' apps, why would the developers care about this segment of the market?

 

What others are saying is that the definition of "smartphone" has expanded and now includes "feature phones" where previously it did not.

 

As for the developers again, what matters is where they can get their most bang for their buck. iOS is solid and is not fragmented. So creating an app for iOS basically means you get the entire user base. Same for Windows Phones, currently. Not so for Android, as each maker is open to have differences that can mess with your app.

 

So it's not like the old days of Wintel vs Mac where it was 90/10 or worse. It is more like 15/20/10/10/8/5 ... etc. I think that is where you are bringing in your low market share worries comes from, but the landscapes just aren't the same.

post #63 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


You're missing my point, I'm not saying that Apple needs the biggest marketshare. But what is happening worldwide is that we're seeing a shrinking of marketshare. So the valid question looms; at what point does that shrinking marketshare come to be a significant problem? It's 15% now! but was higher in recent years. Is 10% ok? 5%? At some point things will fall off the cliff.

And if you think that Apple doesn't care, then you would be wrong. Jobs himself continually talked marketshare when it was good, or rising. Cook does the same. Both talked about small Mac share as giving them a lot of room to grow.

We would not have seen the iPad Mini if it were not for marketshare considerations, nor the 5C. I'm sure we can look at more products that have been designed to either grow marketshare, or prevent its loss.

I'm a long time investor as well, from the 90's. But my biggest purchase was in mid 2004. I've held on to all of my stock, and am very happy with where it's gone. But that doesn't mean I'm happy with everything Apple has done. But let's not forget the big plunge we had since the $705 high. That was because of the perception that Apple had had it. Marketshare was dropping, profits dropped, margins dropped, and sales were well below expectations. As those numbers look to be reversing, Apple stock has begun to rise again. There is a dramatic correlation between what is perceived and stock price.

As far as Samsung goes, I've said many times here, on other tech sites, and the financial sites I'm on, that I don't trust the guesses analylitic firms make, as there is no way to back any of those numbers up, as Samsung doesn't give any quarterly numbers out for smartphones or tablets, and hasn't done so since first calendar quarter of 2011. But still, there are overall industry numbers out there, accurate or not, that Apple is measured against. When Apple measures well, the stock goes up, when they measure badly, the stock goes down. Really, it's pretty obvious. It isn't too much to ask of Apple that they attempt to match industry growth in an industry they pretty much invented.

 

@melgross...yes, I may have gotten of your point a bit. I agree marketshare is important...to a degree and, when it’s accurate…and is always better going up instead of down. And yes, even though Apple stresses their philosophy of "making great products" more than having the largest marketshare, I know Cook & company consider that an important aspect as did Jobs. 

 

Again, I don't believe the marketshare numbers as they are reported and feel Apple's share is higher than 15% so I don't have much passion for debating about a number that can't be proven using current metrics or how it may fluctuate. When I look around me, I see 15 iPhones to every 1 Samsung. Yes, the US is a different beast than the rest of the world, but as we both agree, it's a guessing game when trying to make accurate comparisons due differences in how data is reported. That being said, I would prefer the reported marketshare stabilize and rise for a perceptual and psychological reasons to appease investors and analysts alike…which I believe it's about to do in the 2nd half. I hope 15% is the bottom, but look how long Apple went with a 3% marketshare for the mac and they're still standing as a company...not that I think they will get anywhere's close to that.

 

If Apple continues to increase profits without a marketshare decline, I'm also okay with that if they venture into new areas and revenue streams as well. As we both know, Apple will not be afraid to come out with the next best thing if it means interest wanes in previous products....but I do believe they are making the iPhone the centerpiece of their ecosystem...so the device is important. As more people who don't have apple devices become attracted to that ecosystem (music, TV, car, watch, smart home, health, etc) so will they to the iPhone...sans the Apple haters.

 

I feel the Apple plunge was market manipulation more than anything else. Wall street set their expectations way too high for Apple to meet or exceed it and the campaign to brainwash everyone that Apple could no longer innovate without jobs was in full force. I completely agree with you that the stock price moves on perception most of the time instead of the facts...which is frustrating if you don't have patience to wait it out.

 

Apple has done well for investors over the last 15+ years and hope they continue to do so going forward. Also hope we realize it’s time to exit if their future strategy does not work, but I have faith that the talent went well beyond Jobs and now we may see that come to the forefront.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple on pace to sell record 39M iPhones in June quarter, survey finds