or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › iPhone behind only Nokia and RIM in global smartphone share
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iPhone behind only Nokia and RIM in global smartphone share - Page 2

post #41 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

That said, the iPhone has already begun to takeover the smartphone world. All other smartphones are now copying its interface.

This is analogous to the Mac. Though Mac unit sales are only about 5% of all worldwide PC sales, the Mac interface was "copied" and exists on probably 99+% of all worldwide PG sales.

This is not really true. Samsung's Touchwiz interface, used on both their smart and dumb phones, does not look anything like the iphone's grid.

Nokia's N97 will have a widget interface.

HTC uses TouchFlo3D, dominated by a clock rather than icons.

RIM looks the way they always looked.

SE has its panels.

Android has its desktop.
post #42 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by surur View Post

There are very many who said the iphone is going to take over the smartphone world.

If you say the iphone will be confined to its MacOS-like niche, your view would be seen as rather contoversial around here I suspect.

It doesn't matter what people say. Apple's stated goal was to control 1% of the mobile phone market and that goal was met.


Quote:
BTW between Q3 and Q4, Nokia sales are up (only 90 000, but still up)
RIM sales up 1.64 million
HTC has "record sales" implying they are the highest ever
Samsung went from below 1.2 million to 1.6 million, so also up.
Apple down 700 000.

That's because the iPhone 3G was new in quarter 3, its only natural that its numbers will have a boost when its new and recede in subsequent quarters. When comparing phones on a singular basis the iPhone still by itself outsold every other phone.
post #43 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Their has never been a hard definition for a smartphone. At this point the what all smartphones have in common are an evolving operating system and a software development platform.

Dumb phones don't typically allow for updating the operating system and don't have a software development platform.

It is clear that cell phones are in the "8 bit era" of what will someday be something much better. The issues with push have to do with how well the phone multitasks, runs foreground and background tasks, etc. Whatever we have now will be primative in a few years. Smartphone is basically "cutting edge" and in that regard Apple can and is rapidly losing ground.

Quote:
There have been over 500 million App Store downloads and roughly 12 million iPhones sold. People have been downloading far more than only two apps.

Those of us that hold Apple accountable know that across those two years there were over 600 million cell phone sales. The iPhone is s drop in the bucket. Also Apple always has a habit of smashing numbers together to make them look larger. Apple puts forward the iPhone as a platform while most other companies present their sales by model number. Also as you show yourself, Apple can mix in numbers from iPod touch influence that may or may not be related at all to cell use.

Quote:
Sprint and T-Mobile are in a far different position than the Wii. This past quarter Sprint lost 1.3 million subscribers, T-Mobile added 610,000 subscribers. Verizon added 1.4 million subscribers, AT&T added 2.1 million subscribers.

Sprint and T-Mobile are forced to lower their prices to stay competitive, in the case of Sprint to stay in business at all.

A few points, first, I wasn't speaking about them. However the largest carriers do have to adopt strategies from the second and third tier competitors. T-Mobile and Alltel had Friends and Family plans, Verizon bought Alltel and now has Friends and Family. Sprint offered unlimited everything for $99 and Verizon responded with the same. Verizon has recently had to lower the amount they are paying to subsidize phones with their "New Every Two" program in part because the cost of phones has come down.

The third tier providers were the ones I was mentioning that were offering unlimited everything for $50 a month with no contract. The companies are those like BoostMobile and MetroPCS. It gets much harder to justify $30 just for data when others are offering everything for $50 and no contract.

Does it prove who will move from whom and to where? No but it absolutely proves that within the industry there is a trend of downward price pressure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

A couple of problems with the article you've posted. The first problem is that it sets up the iPhone selling 440,000 less units predicted from an educated guess as a sign of a downturn in sales. That's a ridiculous rational.

The other problem with this article is that it gives no other example of another phone performing better than the iPhone in the current economic climate. To prove that the iPhone is too expensive you have to give an example of another phone that is performing better. They attempt to cast the iPhone as being much more expensive than other phones and this is not at all true.

As far as the iPod Touch cannibalizing iPhone sales, Apple has already stated they'd rather have one of their own products cannibalizing sales rather than someone else.

Companies are expected to make projections for a reason. When the projections are wrong, they are supposed to evaluate what is making them wrong. If the response becomes, "we aren't wrong, reality is wrong" then we've got a problem. Apple might be buying it's own hype a bit too much.

There is a post I had on here quite a while ago (literally years) about Apple and Jobs fatal flaw to commoditize products. They would reach their great design and software achievement and expect it to live on regardless of market conditions. I predicted the iPod would fail because Apple had NEVER up to that point responded to pricing pressure and commoditized a product line. Apple proved me wrong and we have $49 iPods.

Now Apple stands at the edge of another similar decision. People are noting that the iPhone needs to be commoditized. (Discussions are iPhone Nano, etc.) Apple will either respond as they did with the iPod and grab huge marketshare or they will done as they have done historically which is said, we have our price point and if you don't like it, don't be a customer of ours.

Finally one last point, no one has proven that the "platform" business model has worked outside of computing and there it may have worked in part because of the Microsoft monopoly. It fits the thinking of many but that hasn't guaranteed any sort of success. Even then the platforms didn't arise until the computing hardware reached a certain level of sophistication. Before that it was easier to dump all of it and start new.

In videogames consoles, a market that the iPod Touch/iPhone are definitely cribbing from right now, platforms mean absolutely nothing from one generation to the next. Nintendo can lose to Sony and Sony can lose to Nintendo and a winner become irrelevant in an instant. The cell phone market resembles the console market much more than the computer market. Perhaps that will change in the future but for now, calling a phone smart doesn't mean the next generation won't wipe it out.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #44 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Those of us that hold Apple accountable know that across those two years there were over 600 million cell phone sales. The iPhone is a drop in the bucket.

The figure is closer to 2 billion. Nokia alone sells over a million phones per day. The numbers in the cell phone industry are just incredible.
post #45 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It is clear that cell phones are in the "8 bit era" of what will someday be something much better. The issues with push have to do with how well the phone multitasks, runs foreground and background tasks, etc. Whatever we have now will be primative in a few years. Smartphone is basically "cutting edge" and in that regard Apple can and is rapidly losing ground.

The iPhone does multi-task, multi-tasking not cutting edge. I've never seen anyone describe smartphones as having to be cutting edge, because the term cutting edge doesn't really have a meaning.



Quote:
Those of us that hold Apple accountable know that across those two years there were over 600 million cell phone sales. The iPhone is s drop in the bucket. Also Apple always has a habit of smashing numbers together to make them look larger. Apple puts forward the iPhone as a platform while most other companies present their sales by model number. Also as you show yourself, Apple can mix in numbers from iPod touch influence that may or may not be related at all to cell use.

Actually mobile phone sales over over a billion a year and every phone is a drop in the bucket in the context of the entire market.

Companies do not show sales by model number, RIM, Nokia, Samsung do not give sales numbers for each of their individual phones. We know the exact number of iPhone sales because it is Apple's only phone.

Yes the iPhone and iPod Touch are within the iPhone OS platform and sales of apps for the iPhone OS platform come from both.


Quote:
A few points, first, I wasn't speaking about them. However the largest carriers do have to adopt strategies from the second and third tier competitors. T-Mobile and Alltel had Friends and Family plans, Verizon bought Alltel and now has Friends and Family. Sprint offered unlimited everything for $99 and Verizon responded with the same. Verizon has recently had to lower the amount they are paying to subsidize phones with their "New Every Two" program in part because the cost of phones has come down.

Verizon has adopted friends and family but you have to pay an extra charge for it, they don't offer it for free. Verizon has a $99 unlimited voice plan, its not $99 unlimited everything. Both Verizon and AT&T have had these plans since last year.

Quote:
The third tier providers were the ones I was mentioning that were offering unlimited everything for $50 a month with no contract. The companies are those like BoostMobile and MetroPCS. It gets much harder to justify $30 just for data when others are offering everything for $50 and no contract.

Boost Mobile and Metro PCS are nothing like the larger carriers. They don't compete with AT&T or Verizon at all. They don't offer service everywhere and have high roaming fees.


Quote:
Companies are expected to make projections for a reason. When the projections are wrong, they are supposed to evaluate what is making them wrong. If the response becomes, "we aren't wrong, reality is wrong" then we've got a problem. Apple might be buying it's own hype a bit too much.

In that article Wall street analysts made the prediction not Apple. Wall street analysts prediction was wrong and then said the iPhone was loosing sales because it did not meet their prediction.

Quote:
There is a post I had on here quite a while ago (literally years) about Apple and Jobs fatal flaw to commoditize products. They would reach their great design and software achievement and expect it to live on regardless of market conditions. I predicted the iPod would fail because Apple had NEVER up to that point responded to pricing pressure and commoditized a product line. Apple proved me wrong and we have $49 iPods.

Apple was in a completely different place with music players than its in with phones. When the iPod is dominating the far majority of player sales why not wrap up the entire market with a low cost player. The Shuffle is not at all the best selling iPod, the nano and Touch are the best selling iPods. The Shuffle is often used as a secondary iPod.

Quote:
Now Apple stands at the edge of another similar decision. People are noting that the iPhone needs to be commoditized. (Discussions are iPhone Nano, etc.) Apple will either respond as they did with the iPod and grab huge marketshare or they will done as they have done historically which is said, we have our price point and if you don't like it, don't be a customer of ours.

Apple already owned the majority of the music player market when it introduced the shuffle, the shuffle only helped to solidify Apple's dominance. The mobile phone market is an entirely different animal. You have companies like Motorola and SonyEricsson who devalued their brands and killed themselves from commoditization.

Quote:
Finally one last point, no one has proven that the "platform" business model has worked outside of computing and there it may have worked in part because of the Microsoft monopoly. In videogames consoles, a market that the iPod Touch/iPhone are definitely cribbing from right now, platforms mean absolutely nothing from one generation to the next. Nintendo can lose to Sony and Sony can lose to Nintendo and a winner become irrelevant in an instant. The cell phone market resembles the console market much more than the computer market. Perhaps that will change in the future but for now, calling a phone smart doesn't mean the next generation won't wipe it out.

You are completely wrong here, I'm not sure you understand what a platform means. There are lots of platforms. Video games are completely dominated by closed proprietary platforms. Sony, Nintendo, and XBox are not at all interchangeable. People often have to own multiple consoles because each has different games.

Palm OS is a platoform, Windows Mobile is a platform, Nokia S60 is a platform. These mobile phone platforms are nearly 10 years old. The newest mobile platforms are Apple iPhone, Google Android, and Palm Pre.
post #46 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

The iPhone does multi-task, multi-tasking not cutting edge. I've never seen anyone describe smartphones as having to be cutting edge, because the term cutting edge doesn't really have a meaning.

At this point the what all smartphones have in common are an evolving operating system and a software development platform.

I find it strange that I can look up the definition for cutting edge and not only is it clear, it is clear your definition above matches it well.

vanguard: the position of greatest importance or advancement;

The iPhone does not multitask in the conventional computer understanding of multitasking. It has alot of restrictions that will not be on any platform in the future.

Quote:
Actually mobile phone sales over over a billion a year and every phone is a drop in the bucket in the context of the entire market.

Companies do not show sales by model number, RIM, Nokia, Samsung do not give sales numbers for each of their individual phones. We know the exact number of iPhone sales because it is Apple's only phone.

Yes the iPhone and iPod Touch are within the iPhone OS platform and sales of apps for the iPhone OS platform come from both.

The article I linked met what you asked for and showed other competitors growing their marketshare even as sales were declining. I have seen plenty of sales breakdowns that show Apple eclipsing certain platforms or certain models. The data is selective and gives an incomplete picture. They will compare the iPhone to the Nokia N9* series and show the iPhone with large sales, or they will show the iPhone versus Symbian but not Apple versus Nokia in phone sales.

The data cannot be selectively sliced and diced that way, especially if someone is making big picture claims.

Finally if you are going to compare app sales and include something that is not a cell phone, compare it appropriately to something like the Nintendo DS or PSP. If you straddle a line, you have to play both sides, not half of a side. You can't go into a multiple front consumer war and win one side.

Quote:
Verizon has adopted friends and family but you have to pay an extra charge for it, they don't offer it for free. Verizon has a $99 unlimited voice plan, its not $99 unlimited everything. Both Verizon and AT&T have had these plans since last year.

I don't know where you get your information but Friends and Family is free on Verizon. Sorry about the confusion with unlimited.

Quote:
Boost Mobile and Metro PCS are nothing like the larger carriers. They don't compete with AT&T or Verizon at all. They don't offer service everywhere and have high roaming fees.

Everyone is competition. It is like claiming Apple isn't competition because they hadn't been in the game long enough. A game changer can become a large competitor quickly. Alltel was regional and was purchased and had the compelling features grabbed by Verizon.

Quote:
In that article Wall street analysts made the prediction not Apple. Wall street analysts prediction was wrong and then said the iPhone was loosing sales because it did not meet their prediction.

Apple is not meeting their own predictions. It is clear they are stuffing the channel. People are noting that fact.

Quote:
Apple was in a completely different place with music players than its in with phones. When the iPod is dominating the far majority of player sales why not wrap up the entire market with a low cost player. The Shuffle is not at all the best selling iPod, the nano and Touch are the best selling iPods. The Shuffle is often used as a secondary iPod.

When I wrote that article, Apple was selling the largest and most expensive music player and companies were just coming out with cheaper alternatives. There was a time when the only iPods available cost a few hundred dollars, much like with the iPhone now. There are $49 cell phones. There is no cheaper iPhone. People see the need for commoditization and that is why rumors like iPhone Nano keep coming up. People want Apple to duplicate their previous actions that were successful.

Quote:
Apple already owned the majority of the music player market when it introduced the shuffle, the shuffle only helped to solidify Apple's dominance. The mobile phone market is an entirely different animal. You have companies like Motorola and SonyEricsson who devalued their brands and killed themselves from commoditization.

They killed themselves by thinking commoditization mean no need for innovation. How long did Motorola sit on the Razr for example? Again, we are talking about a time when an iPod was THE iPod much like how it is now for the iPhone. Apple had a choice then and made the right one with Nano's, shuffles ans so forth. They didn't just sit on one solution and hope the market would bow down to it.

Quote:
You are completely wrong here, I'm not sure you understand what a platform means. There are lots of platforms. Video games are completely dominated by closed proprietary platforms. Sony, Nintendo, and XBox are not at all interchangeable. People often have to own multiple consoles because each has different games.

Palm OS is a platoform, Windows Mobile is a platform, Nokia S60 is a platform. These mobile phone platforms are nearly 10 years old. The newest mobile platforms are Apple iPhone, Google Android, and Palm Pre.

There are lots of platforms and as you noted, some stick around and others just quickly get overwhelmed and disappear. I consider programming a platform so I would call even BREW from Verizon or JAVA a platform for cell phones. The point is that Windows was able to take their platform across multiple hardware generations but that is seldom the norm.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #47 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I find it strange that I can look up the definition for cutting edge and not only is it clear, it is clear your definition above matches it well.

vanguard: the position of greatest importance or advancement;

How do you look at two competing technologies or products and declare one in the position of greatest importance or advancement. How and who make that decision?

Quote:
The iPhone does not multitask in the conventional computer understanding of multitasking. It has alot of restrictions that will not be on any platform in the future.

The iPhone does multi-task. Apps are not allowed to multi-task and Apple has given a clear reason why. How do you know what platform will do in the future?


Quote:
The article I linked met what you asked for and showed other competitors growing their marketshare even as sales were declining. I have seen plenty of sales breakdowns that show Apple eclipsing certain platforms or certain models. The data is selective and gives an incomplete picture. They will compare the iPhone to the Nokia N9* series and show the iPhone with large sales, or they will show the iPhone versus Symbian but not Apple versus Nokia in phone sales.

That article was about companies that make all phones. Apple does not play in the larger phone market only the smartphone market.

Quote:
The data cannot be selectively sliced and diced that way, especially if someone is making big picture claims.

Yes it can, featured phones and smartphones are two different markets.

Quote:
Finally if you are going to compare app sales and include something that is not a cell phone, compare it appropriately to something like the Nintendo DS or PSP. If you straddle a line, you have to play both sides, not half of a side. You can't go into a multiple front consumer war and win one side.

An app store sale is an app store sale, what does it matter if that app is used on the iPhone or the iPod Touch. When money is spent on an app for the iPod Touch is that money worth less than money spent on apps for the iPhone?


Quote:
I don't know where you get your information but Friends and Family is free on Verizon. Sorry about the confusion with unlimited.

A friend of mine on Verizon told me he would have to spend more to get Friends and Family.

"To be eligible for the plan, Verizon customers on a single line must have a minimum plan of $59.99 per month for 900 anytime minutes. Yet, Verizon's cheapest single plan offers 450 anytime minutes for $39.99. Family users must have a minimum plan of $89.99 per month for 1,400 anytime minutes, which leaves out the cheapest family plan of $69.99 per month for 700 anytime minutes."

What he meant is that he would have to get a more costly voice plan. Verizon don't give away nothing for free.



Quote:
Everyone is competition. It is like claiming Apple isn't competition because they hadn't been in the game long enough. A game changer can become a large competitor quickly. Alltel was regional and was purchased and had the compelling features grabbed by Verizon.

Boost Mobile and Metro PCS are no competition to Verizon or AT&T in any real substantive way. AT&T gains in new subscribers Alltel's entire customer base every 6 months. These companies are not direct competitors.


Quote:
Apple is not meeting their own predictions. It is clear they are stuffing the channel. People are noting that fact.

Where have you seen Apple giving a prediction on iPhone sales?


Quote:
When I wrote that article, Apple was selling the largest and most expensive music player and companies were just coming out with cheaper alternatives. There was a time when the only iPods available cost a few hundred dollars, much like with the iPhone now. There are $49 cell phones. There is no cheaper iPhone. People see the need for commoditization and that is why rumors like iPhone Nano keep coming up. People want Apple to duplicate their previous actions that were successful.

Their have always been cheap mobile phones, that was the case long before Apple got into the game. Their is no way Apple can recreate its iPod success, mobile phones are an entirely different market.


Quote:
They killed themselves by thinking commoditization mean no need for innovation. How long did Motorola sit on the Razr for example? Again, we are talking about a time when an iPod was THE iPod much like how it is now for the iPhone. Apple had a choice then and made the right one with Nano's, shuffles ans so forth. They didn't just sit on one solution and hope the market would bow down to it.

The iPhone has no where near the position the iPod has enjoyed. I'm not sure why you are even making such a comparison. As I said earlier Apple introduced the shuffle to solidify the dominance it already held with music players. Apple holds no dominance at all in mobile phones, and a cheaper iPhone will do absolutely nothing to change that.
post #48 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

How do you look at two competing technologies or products and declare one in the position of greatest importance or advancement. How and who make that decision?

I don't where you are going to with the claim of two competing technologies. They don't have to compete against each other, they can just be features that both products have. The defining features of smartphones for now is/was pushing email and other information out to the phone and thus the need for the data plan to go with that. This was the defacto understanding and even Apple marketed to it until they couldn't pull it off and made it disappear.

It is no different than 3G or aGPS being unimportant, until they suddenly were with the next revision. I have no doubt that when Apple gets push right in the next version of then iPhone software, a phone won't be a smartphone unless it does push per Apple.

Let's play a game. Find me ANOTHER phone defined as a smart phone that doesn't do push email.

Quote:
The iPhone does multi-task. Apps are not allowed to multi-task and Apple has given a clear reason why. How do you know what platform will do in the future?

I know what the other platforms do now and regardless of the Apple reasoning, they will adapt or die. Most of this has to do with power and battery life. Those will both improve and the limitations placed there now won't be necessary.

Quote:
That article was about companies that make all phones. Apple does not play in the larger phone market only the smartphone market.

If claiming that Apple dropping from third to fourth in the fastest declining segment of cell phone sales somehow makes you feel better than goodie for you. Declaring that Apple is kicking ass and taking names because they declare themselves to be the biggest growing fish in the smallest and shrinking pond is just not persuasive reasoning.

Quote:
Yes it can, featured phones and smartphones are two different markets.

How many BREW downloads do you think Verizon has across their entire network per year? You (and Apple) are creating a false distinction. One of the key points of smartphones is start off fully featured. The store makes it very easy to download, install and try apps, but the sale through and use afterwards has been shown to be very, very small. If someone tries 30 and buys two, or tries two and buys two, the results are the same in terms of finances. Finally both the App Store and BREW are walled gardens where Apple or Verizon determine who gets to sell what to whom. This actually makes them quite different from most smart phone makers who do not appear to demand to be exclusive gate keepers to the app kingdom and very similar for comparison purposes.

Quote:
An app store sale is an app store sale, what does it matter if that app is used on the iPhone or the iPod Touch. When money is spent on an app for the iPod Touch is that money worth less than money spent on apps for the iPhone?

What strange reasoning, I can't compare my Dare to the iPhone because it is a feature phone and not a smart phone in terms of sales, but you can just lump in iPod sales because, well just because since it isn't a smartphone either.

You prove my point. How can you declare it appropriate to add in sale via an MP3 player but refuse to add in sales via feature phones? The walls are artificial. How is the money spent on a BREW or JAVA application on feature phones worth any less than money spent on apps for smartphones? There is your own reasoning reflected back at ya.

Quote:
A friend of mine on Verizon told me he would have to spend more to get Friends and Family.

"To be eligible for the plan, Verizon customers on a single line must have a minimum plan of $59.99 per month for 900 anytime minutes. Yet, Verizon's cheapest single plan offers 450 anytime minutes for $39.99. Family users must have a minimum plan of $89.99 per month for 1,400 anytime minutes, which leaves out the cheapest family plan of $69.99 per month for 700 anytime minutes."

What he meant is that he would have to get a more costly voice plan. Verizon don't give away nothing for free.

Having a minimum plan cost doesn't mean the feature is an add on that costs more. It is included free with all plans above certain dollar amounts. It isn't offered on the cheapest plan or pre-pay phones. Big deal.

Quote:
Boost Mobile and Metro PCS are no competition to Verizon or AT&T in any real substantive way. AT&T gains in new subscribers Alltel's entire customer base every 6 months. These companies are not direct competitors.

Time will tell. For now, they are simply the innovators who will help us see where the market might be a year from now.

Quote:
Where have you seen Apple giving a prediction on iPhone sales?

Apple gives guidance every quarter.

Quote:
Their have always been cheap mobile phones, that was the case long before Apple got into the game. Their is no way Apple can recreate its iPod success, mobile phones are an entirely different market.

There might not be a way for them to maintain their iPhone success either. When Jobs introduced the iPhone, he said no one would be able to touch it for five years. Two years later the landscape is very different. Apple still rules for browsing and has some very useful and enjoyable solutions with regard to their app store. However there is no way they can simply refine for five years. The competition is already breathing down their neck very strongly.

The iPhone might be thought of as the first true consumer smartphone. People who owned Blackberrys and other similar phones were business guys who needed their email no matter what. The iPhone made such features desirable by the masses. That was great and gave Apple a leg in to a very competitive market. That market is still much larger than just the smart phone market. Apple can still capture that market because there is no "iPod" within the consumer phone market to slay. It isn't like Apple is the only party who can make a $50 MP3 player, but you stay with them because they offer the best solution and match the price point.

Quote:
The iPhone has no where near the position the iPod has enjoyed. I'm not sure why you are even making such a comparison. As I said earlier Apple introduced the shuffle to solidify the dominance it already held with music players. Apple holds no dominance at all in mobile phones, and a cheaper iPhone will do absolutely nothing to change that.

MP3 players may not have been ubiquitous yet, but cd players, radios, walkmans, etc all were. There wasn't a standard to unify around and move the market forward. Apple did that and it was great. Cell phones are no different now. The iPhone was one of the first phones that made people realize they were staring at the computing platform of the future, the next generation's laptops. Apple can still do to cell phones what iPods did for managing and listening to music.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #49 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

What is this Symbian on phones? I thought it was one of those ride a dildo machines.

They are one and the same. Didn't you check out the enhanced vibration on the old Nokia 7280s?
post #50 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The defining features of smartphones for now is/was pushing email and other information out to the phone and thus the need for the data plan to go with that. This was the defacto understanding and even Apple marketed to it until they couldn't pull it off and made it disappear.

It is no different than 3G or aGPS being unimportant, until they suddenly were with the next revision. I have no doubt that when Apple gets push right in the next version of then iPhone software, a phone won't be a smartphone unless it does push per Apple.

Quote:
Let's play a game. Find me ANOTHER phone defined as a smart phone that doesn't do push email.

I'm not sure why you've suddenly become hung up on push email. First of all push email is a service and is not a function directly of the phone. Most phones don't even have email much less push email, the phones most famous for push email is the Black Berry.

The iPhone does use push email. Its used Yahoo push email from the very beginning, with iPhone 2.0 can use Windows Exchange push email and Mobile Me push email, no other major email service such as Gmail provides push.

As I said push email is a service, it doesn't matter what the phone can do if you don't have an account with a service that provides push email.


Quote:
I know what the other platforms do now and regardless of the Apple reasoning, they will adapt or die. Most of this has to do with power and battery life. Those will both improve and the limitations placed there now won't be necessary.

Adaptation is the need of every company. Getting into the mobile phone business was a big change for Apple.



Quote:
If claiming that Apple dropping from third to fourth in the fastest declining segment of cell phone sales somehow makes you feel better than goodie for you. Declaring that Apple is kicking ass and taking names because they declare themselves to be the biggest growing fish in the smallest and shrinking pond is just not persuasive reasoning.

You completely take those numbers out of context. The iPhone platform dropped from third to fourth behind the Windows Mobile platform, meaning the iPhone as a single device platform is fourth behind all of the smartphones that Nokia, RIM, and Windows Media make.

Smartphones sales in the fourth quarter grew 3.7% year over year. Smartphones sales are growing just not as quickly as they would if we weren't in a global economic crisis.


Quote:
How many BREW downloads do you think Verizon has across their entire network per year? You (and Apple) are creating a false distinction. One of the key points of smartphones is start off fully featured. The store makes it very easy to download, install and try apps, but the sale through and use afterwards has been shown to be very, very small. If someone tries 30 and buys two, or tries two and buys two, the results are the same in terms of finances. Finally both the App Store and BREW are walled gardens where Apple or Verizon determine who gets to sell what to whom. This actually makes them quite different from most smart phone makers who do not appear to demand to be exclusive gate keepers to the app kingdom and very similar for comparison purposes.

You like to use terms like "cutting edge" and "full featured". All phones offer slightly different features, there are too many variations to come up with one standard for cutting edge or full featured.

I'm not sure of the point of Verizon BREW. What does that have to do with the number of App Store downloads?

Quote:
What strange reasoning, I can't compare my Dare to the iPhone because it is a feature phone and not a smart phone in terms of sales, but you can just lump in iPod sales because, well just because since it isn't a smartphone either.

The Dare and the iPhone have nothing in common, they don't use the same operating system or the same applications. The iPod Touch and the iPhone do use the exact same operating system and the exact same applications. Therefore apps purchased from the same App Store are used for both.

The other iPod line (shuffle, nano, classic) have their own operating systems and don't use the App Store and are not included in App Store download numbers.

Quote:
You prove my point. How can you declare it appropriate to add in sale via an MP3 player but refuse to add in sales via feature phones? The walls are artificial. How is the money spent on a BREW or JAVA application on feature phones worth any less than money spent on apps for smartphones? There is your own reasoning reflected back at ya.

You've totally lost me on this one. I have no idea what you are talking about. What do the sales of BREW or JAVA applications have to do with App store sales?


Quote:
Having a minimum plan cost doesn't mean the feature is an add on that costs more. It is included free with all plans above certain dollar amounts. It isn't offered on the cheapest plan or pre-pay phones. Big deal.

At best its an additional feature that comes with the cost of a premium voice plan. Its not a service freely offered to all Verizon customers.

Quote:
Time will tell. For now, they are simply the innovators who will help us see where the market might be a year from now.

You calling the low cost MVNO operators the innovators of the industry? They will be lucky to still be in business next year. Where is Helio Ocean, ESPN Mobile, Disney Mobile, Virgin Mobile.


Quote:
Apple gives guidance every quarter.

They give broad guidance on expected revenue, they don't give an itemized description of the number of phones they expect to sell.


Quote:
There might not be a way for them to maintain their iPhone success either. When Jobs introduced the iPhone, he said no one would be able to touch it for five years. Two years later the landscape is very different. Apple still rules for browsing and has some very useful and enjoyable solutions with regard to their app store. However there is no way they can simply refine for five years. The competition is already breathing down their neck very strongly.

Jobs knows the five year plan for the iPhone, we don't. No mobile operating system has yet come near the sophistication of the iPhone OS. The Palm Pre looks as though it might be the first real contender. Part of the reason for that is the Pre was developed by ex Apple employees.

Quote:
The iPhone might be thought of as the first true consumer smartphone. People who owned Blackberrys and other similar phones were business guys who needed their email no matter what. The iPhone made such features desirable by the masses. That was great and gave Apple a leg in to a very competitive market. That market is still much larger than just the smart phone market. Apple can still capture that market because there is no "iPod" within the consumer phone market to slay. It isn't like Apple is the only party who can make a $50 MP3 player, but you stay with them because they offer the best solution and match the price point.

I don't think the iPhone was the first true consumer smartphone. Nokia has been making consumer centric smartphones for years. And in the US the T-Mobile SideKick has been extremely popular.

Their is no one smartphone that is as popular as the iPod, the reason for that is the mobile phone market is way too big for any one phone to dominate the entire thing.


Quote:
MP3 players may not have been ubiquitous yet, but cd players, radios, walkmans, etc all were. There wasn't a standard to unify around and move the market forward. Apple did that and it was great. Cell phones are no different now. The iPhone was one of the first phones that made people realize they were staring at the computing platform of the future, the next generation's laptops. Apple can still do to cell phones what iPods did for managing and listening to music.

No matter how you attempt to rationalize it, no the mobile phone market is too big, too complex, and too established for Apple (or any one company) to dominate.
post #51 of 57
I'm jumping in here in the middle, so excuse me, if I've gone off-base.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I know what the other platforms do now and regardless of the Apple reasoning, they will adapt or die. Most of this has to do with power and battery life. Those will both improve and the limitations placed there now won't be necessary.

Apple said as much - no multi-tasking (other than Apple's own apps) because of power and battery life, not because OS X is incapable. Clearly then, when Apple deems power and battery life acceptable, multi-tasking will be made available to other apps.

Quote:
If claiming that Apple dropping from third to fourth in the fastest declining segment of cell phone sales somehow makes you feel better than goodie for you. Declaring that Apple is kicking ass and taking names because they declare themselves to be the biggest growing fish in the smallest and shrinking pond is just not persuasive reasoning.

When did Apple declare "themselves to be the biggest growing fish in the smallest and shrinking pond." In any case, the smartphone market is not a shrinking pond.

Quote:
Apple gives guidance every quarter.

Have you ever seen Apple's guidance? Why make up stuff; it reduces the credibility of your other points? Apple's guidance never includes unit sales figures for anything. In total, Apple has set exactly one public goal for iPhone - 10m in unit sales for its first full calendar year (2008).

Quote:
There might not be a way for them to maintain their iPhone success either. When Jobs introduced the iPhone, he said no one would be able to touch it for five years. Two years later the landscape is very different. Apple still rules for browsing and has some very useful and enjoyable solutions with regard to their app store. However there is no way they can simply refine for five years. The competition is already breathing down their neck very strongly.

What phone released in 2008 is breathing down their neck very strongly? What 2008 phone OS is breathing down iPhone 2.2's neck very strongly? (Don't say WebOS as we've only seen the marketing pitch, and not all its warts and things it doesn't do.) [After next week, we can compare 2009 phone OSes to iPhone 3.0. And in June, we'll ask about 2009 phones relative to the next-gen iPhone.]

Why do you think Apple will just "refine"? Among other things, Apple has bought PA Semi, developed OpenCL/Grand Central, hired chip expert Mark Papermaster from IBM, focused on battery tech as seen in MBP 17", arranged to have the lowest-cost flash memory deals, etc. Even if some of that stuff is being used in their Mac line, the real focus of all of it is on the mobile handheld gadget - both iPhone and iPod.

Quote:
The iPhone might be thought of as the first true consumer smartphone. People who owned Blackberrys and other similar phones were business guys who needed their email no matter what. The iPhone made such features desirable by the masses. That was great and gave Apple a leg in to a very competitive market. That market is still much larger than just the smart phone market. Apple can still capture that market because there is no "iPod" within the consumer phone market to slay. It isn't like Apple is the only party who can make a $50 MP3 player, but you stay with them because they offer the best solution and match the price point.

MP3 players may not have been ubiquitous yet, but cd players, radios, walkmans, etc all were. There wasn't a standard to unify around and move the market forward. Apple did that and it was great. Cell phones are no different now. The iPhone was one of the first phones that made people realize they were staring at the computing platform of the future, the next generation's laptops. Apple can still do to cell phones what iPods did for managing and listening to music.

Agree, and I'd add what you left unstated, that they can do this only if they keep innovating, with accurate forecasting of both technologies and consumer tastes, and strategically planning years ahead. Is there any evidence that Apple is slacking off?
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #52 of 57
Edit: Deleted, Posted in wrong threat sorry :-)
post #53 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorsten View Post

I can't wait for the new iPod Nanos to come out wiht integrated Wifi and the ability to request songs from the iTunes DJ.

Wifi does seem to be the logical next step for the nano.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #54 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by surur View Post

This is not really true.

Mac OS and Windows 3.0 were different in the details, too. So, of course, the minor details are different but the basic paradigm is the same, except for one thing, none of the others have multi-touch so they have to compensate. And if they were exactly identical, Apple would likely be sending lawyers.

Fundamentally, iPhone changed the UI paradigm. When iPhone was released, the only phone people compared it to was the Prada phone, which had a similar initial look but no coherent UI of substance underneath. If not for that lack of substance, one could've called it the Prada UI paradigm, instead of iPhone UI paradigm.

Now, everyone, including RIM via its Storm, is trying to copy this UI, and other things that iPhone and Apple have spawned.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #55 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It is clear that cell phones are in the "8 bit era" of what will someday be something much better. The issues with push have to do with how well the phone multitasks, runs foreground and background tasks, etc. Whatever we have now will be primative in a few years. Smartphone is basically "cutting edge" and in that regard Apple can and is rapidly losing ground.

How so. Name a currently shipping competitor product that is superior. None. By the time the 1Ghz Snapdragon ARM in the Toshiba TG01 ships we'll likely see a new rev of the iPhone already or in the near future as the 1st gen iPhone contracts will be expiring...and it won't be running Windows Mobile.

Plus Apple purchased PA Semi for specific reasons and it's not likely for desktop Macintoshes. The assertion that Apple has lost ground or is likely to lose ground has no merit at this time.

Quote:
Those of us that hold Apple accountable know that across those two years there were over 600 million cell phone sales. The iPhone is s drop in the bucket.

Arguably the same is true in the PC market. And yet Apple has mindshare and more importantly marketshare advantage in the most profitable segment. Ask Motorolla if they would prefer to trade their entire lineup for the iPhone.

Hey, what's a $3.6B 4th qtr loss is you've sold all them phones.

Quote:
Also Apple always has a habit of smashing numbers together to make them look larger. Apple puts forward the iPhone as a platform while most other companies present their sales by model number. Also as you show yourself, Apple can mix in numbers from iPod touch influence that may or may not be related at all to cell use.

And what matters is that the iPhone platform is highly profitable and adds significantly to Apple's bottom line, has captured huge mindshare from the incumbents and has captured significant share of the most profitable segment.

Quote:
The third tier providers were the ones I was mentioning that were offering unlimited everything for $50 a month with no contract. The companies are those like BoostMobile and MetroPCS. It gets much harder to justify $30 just for data when others are offering everything for $50 and no contract.

Does it prove who will move from whom and to where? No but it absolutely proves that within the industry there is a trend of downward price pressure.

Except networks are expensive to build and Verizon and AT&T can command higher prices as a result. More importantly, they HAVE to keep higher prices in order to continue to compete with each other.

These other companies are going after the low end of the market with higher turnover and higher default and lower profits. The biggest thing that the iPhone has done for AT&T is capture some of the cream of the market from Verizon as opposed to more pay as you go contracts.

Quote:
Companies are expected to make projections for a reason. When the projections are wrong, they are supposed to evaluate what is making them wrong. If the response becomes, "we aren't wrong, reality is wrong" then we've got a problem. Apple might be buying it's own hype a bit too much.

There is a post I had on here quite a while ago (literally years) about Apple and Jobs fatal flaw to commoditize products. They would reach their great design and software achievement and expect it to live on regardless of market conditions. I predicted the iPod would fail because Apple had NEVER up to that point responded to pricing pressure and commoditized a product line. Apple proved me wrong and we have $49 iPods.

Now Apple stands at the edge of another similar decision. People are noting that the iPhone needs to be commoditized. (Discussions are iPhone Nano, etc.) Apple will either respond as they did with the iPod and grab huge marketshare or they will done as they have done historically which is said, we have our price point and if you don't like it, don't be a customer of ours.

There is a commodity price for smart phones and Apple is pretty much right on at the moment. $49 iPods did not appear overnight and I recall $99 iPhones on closeouts. Apple doesn't need a entry level iPhone given the subsidized price can drop to $99.

Quote:
Finally one last point, no one has proven that the "platform" business model has worked outside of computing and there it may have worked in part because of the Microsoft monopoly. It fits the thinking of many but that hasn't guaranteed any sort of success. Even then the platforms didn't arise until the computing hardware reached a certain level of sophistication. Before that it was easier to dump all of it and start new.

Smartphones is a hybrid of the computing market and Apple's success thus far says differently. Name a smartphone not part of a "platform"?

Quote:
In videogames consoles, a market that the iPod Touch/iPhone are definitely cribbing from right now, platforms mean absolutely nothing from one generation to the next. Nintendo can lose to Sony and Sony can lose to Nintendo and a winner become irrelevant in an instant. The cell phone market resembles the console market much more than the computer market. Perhaps that will change in the future but for now, calling a phone smart doesn't mean the next generation won't wipe it out.

The iPod/iPhone is cribbing from the previous PDA and Smartphones markets...not the console market. PalmOS is/was a platform. Windows Mobile is a platform. Linux is a scattered platform that will likely be replaced by Android and perhaps WebOS. Symbian is a platform.
post #56 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Time will tell. For now, they are simply the innovators who will help us see where the market might be a year from now.

Actually, they're small players in a weak economy that have a good chance of either disappearing or getting gobbled up by AT&T or Verizon.
post #57 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

Mac OS and Windows 3.0 were different in the details, too. So, of course, the minor details are different but the basic paradigm is the same, except for one thing, none of the others have multi-touch so they have to compensate. And if they were exactly identical, Apple would likely be sending lawyers.

Fundamentally, iPhone changed the UI paradigm. When iPhone was released, the only phone people compared it to was the Prada phone, which had a similar initial look but no coherent UI of substance underneath. If not for that lack of substance, one could've called it the Prada UI paradigm, instead of iPhone UI paradigm.

Now, everyone, including RIM via its Storm, is trying to copy this UI, and other things that iPhone and Apple have spawned.

I think you will have to explain exactly whats copied. TouchWiz does not look ANYTHING like the iPhone OS.

Both the similarities and the differences are details, and they all matter.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › iPhone behind only Nokia and RIM in global smartphone share