I'm not, I asked if the experience he/she was getting from their current phone was twice that of a phone priced half as much. I haven't mentioned a brand there, it was the other user that stated they had an iPhone.
I know for a fact if I was going to purchase an iPhone today, it would cost 4 times what my current phone cost, and the monthly charges would be 2-3 times as high as my current charges. Would I can that much benefit from the iPhone, no I wouldn't, but I am not saying that others will feel the same way.
To each their own. but I'm talking about comparing like to like. That's really the only way one can compare value?if you're looking to the same kind of product.
If your needs are less, then much cheaper phones and services are a better choice.
Actually I believe is included in the Americas figure.
And what does it matter if they group Europe together (they actually have it split in two), they group other regions together as well.
It's just that regions are not markets. What about Japan? That's a separate market? So is Australia.
It's clear that Mexico isn't included in the N. American region of Canada and the US. I don't know why the region isn't broken up with it. It should be the way they've done it otherwise. It's just an arbitrary regional makeup and ranking. It means little.
For example, where's Russia? That's also its own market.
How about Turkey? They consider themselves to be part of Europe?
It's just that regions are not markets. What about Japan? That's a separate market? So is Australia.
It's clear that Mexico isn't included in the N. American region of Canada and the US. I don't know why the region isn't broken up with it. It should be the way they've done it otherwise. It's just an arbitrary regional makeup and ranking. It means little.
For example, where's Russia? That's also its own market.
How about Turkey? They consider themselves to be part of Europe?
These breakdowns are nuts.
How about you go to the GSMA and talk to them about it, I didn't come up with the regions.
but looking at the regions, I was guess that Japan and Australia are in Asia Pacific, and Turkey/Russia in East Europe
GSMA is a lobbying group for the GSM manufacturers --- whose job is to make GSM look good. Their statistics are self-serving.
It is a fact that Canada and US have more than 50% of their subscibers are on CDMA carriers --- they don't even have SIM cards, so there is ZERO possibility that they will have double counting for those subscribers. It is a fact that Canada and US are dominated by postpaid subscribers --- both on CDMA and GSM --- so they don't have SIM cards lying around in their desk drawers that gets top up once every 6 months to keep their telephone numbers alive.
The numbers for Canada and US are much more accurate than the rest of the world --- which means that the North America is under-represented in the statistics.
I think Turkey is in the Middle Eastern region. Otherwise, it seems as though there are too many connections there.
Whatever, right?
Asia Pacific is a huge aggregate population, probably about as many people as all the other regions combined, but they're all lumped under one entry.
Looking at the figures, it's not terribly off except for Europe. Elsewhere, it's between 0.5 and 1 "connection" per person. So I guess it's a very rough measure of population. Europe looks to be 2:1, supposedly averaging two devices per person.
I think it's more than a little self-serving to break up every iteration of CDMA into six signal types, but every iteration of GSM simply gets counted as GSM (EDGE, HSDPA, WTFDPA, etc is just GSM). It would seem that the GSM numbers should be good enough that they shouldn't need to feel so insecure as to need to break down the numbers of the competition like that while consolidating their own numbers.
GSMA is a lobbying group for the GSM manufacturers --- whose job is to make GSM look good. Their statistics are self-serving.
Quote:
About Us
The GSMA represents the interests of the worldwide mobile communications industry. Spanning 219 countries, the GSMA unites nearly 800 of the world?s mobile operators, as well as more than 200 companies in the broader mobile ecosystem, including handset makers, software companies, equipment providers, Internet companies, and media and entertainment organisations. The GSMA is focused on innovating, incubating and creating new opportunities for its membership, all with the end goal of driving the growth of the mobile communications industry.
Oh, it is for operators as well, so this one place you were wrong.
Quote:
The numbers for Canada and US are much more accurate than the rest of the world --- which means that the North America is under-represented in the statistics.
If you are not happy with the numbers, talk to the GSMA about, their contact details are on the site.
Asia Pacific is a huge aggregate population, probably about as many people as all the other regions combined, but they're all lumped under one entry.
Looking at the figures, it's not terribly off except for Europe. Elsewhere, it's between 0.5 and 1 "connection" per person. So I guess it's a very rough measure of population. Europe looks to be 2:1, supposedly averaging two devices per person.
I think it's more than a little self-serving to break up every iteration of CDMA into six signal types, but every iteration of GSM simply gets counted as GSM (EDGE, HSDPA, WTFDPA, etc is just GSM). It would seem that the GSM numbers should be good enough that they shouldn't need to feel so insecure as to need to break down the numbers of the competition like that while consolidating their own numbers.
They count SIM cards as connections, not devices.
This is a very old article back in 2002 --- counting SIM cards were estimated to give you a 20% over-count in mobile penetration.
Of course, that was before all those MVNO's springing up, may have even more over count now.
Basically the only statistics you can trust are the US/Canada (where basically 80-90% of their subscribers are postpaid) and Japan/South Korea (where most people still think only criminals would use prepaid cell phones). Co-incidentally, those 4 countries are where the CDMA users are populated.
Even if we recognize that the analysts used the GAAP adjustment, there is no way that they can accurately forecast operating expenses directly related to any specific product.
But without a declaration of the protocol used in the report we can only assume.
But Apple has also provided non-GAAP adjustments for direct costs associated with iPhone/AppleTV.
So yes, we can't split Apple's R&D and SG&A among Apple products. And Apple doesn't show us the non-deferred quarter's operating costs.
But you should read Turley Muller's analysis of current deferred and non-current deferred costs to see how one might be able to deduce the margin. As I said before, he comes up with higher margins than Sacconaghi.
I'm not, I asked if the experience he/she was getting from their current phone was twice that of a phone priced half as much. I haven't mentioned a brand there, it was the other user that stated they had an iPhone.
I know for a fact if I was going to purchase an iPhone today, it would cost 4 times what my current phone cost, and the monthly charges would be 2-3 times as high as my current charges. Would I can that much benefit from the iPhone, no I wouldn't, but I am not saying that others will feel the same way.
I have had my iPhone 3GS for about a month, and I can absolutely say that we (incl my family) are getting a benefit that is worth more than the $47 extra (vs staying with my previous phone without a data plan). How do I arrive at $50 as the value/cost threshold? Phone cost about $320 (incl tax.) Split over 24 months, so that's $13.33/month. (With such low interest rates, the cost of the $320 is negligible on a monthly basis over 24 months.) Add in the $30 data plan plus additional taxes, or approx $33. Rounded, that makes $47/month. With my previous phone, I never used it except to make phone calls; everything else was a huge hassle - several layers of menus and clicks just to do anything.
Suppose I got a different phone for free (like a Blackberry Curve) but also with a $30 data plan. Then the difference is $13.33 per month (actually would be almost $1 less as I'd have had to buy a microSD card). I've used a Blackberry for work and so I can compare, and once again, I'm sure that my family has received a value worth more than $12.50 during this past month.
The apps have made a huge difference - especially the games (mostly free for now) and the apps that make accessing web services so much easier. And for those things where the Blackberry also has the same feature (like music, camera, video, web access), the large screen and ease of use of the iPhone makes it so much better and fun, and for us, much more likely to use.
Asia Pacific is a huge aggregate population, probably about as many people as all the other regions combined, but they're all lumped under one entry.
Looking at the figures, it's not terribly off except for Europe. Elsewhere, it's between 0.5 and 1 "connection" per person. So I guess it's a very rough measure of population. Europe looks to be 2:1, supposedly averaging two devices per person.
I think it's more than a little self-serving to break up every iteration of CDMA into six signal types, but every iteration of GSM simply gets counted as GSM (EDGE, HSDPA, WTFDPA, etc is just GSM). It would seem that the GSM numbers should be good enough that they shouldn't need to feel so insecure as to need to break down the numbers of the competition like that while consolidating their own numbers.
It really is odd, but I suppose that's to be expected. What they are going to say when the various flavors of "4G" come out is anyone's guess.
But I believe that China has more than one standard. It isn't "just" GSM.
But j's point was to show that the USA was the smallest market. The chart, of course, doesn't show that at all.
I didn't calculate the GAAP adjustments; they were provided by Apple in its press release (and I'm sure it's in the 10Q or 10K). To be accurate, Apple refers to them as non-GAAP adjustments, as they adjust the GAAP figures to provide the non-GAAP statements. As samab said (and for once we agree!), the adjustment backs out the deferred income from previous quarters and adds in the actual revenue from the current quarter.
Apple also provides a cost of sales non-GAAP adjustment which backs out deferred costs from previous quarters and adds in the actual costs for the current quarter. So one can get a glimpse of the proportional iPhone/AppleTV costs associated with the revenue. And the margins are huge. (I think we can all agree that the AppleTV revenue is really small relative to iPhone revenue.) And this is what the Financial Alchemist link I provided earlier looks at.
I looked at the RIM report; I'm not sure what you wanted me to see. RIM claims 40% margin overall; their report does not break out the margins for devices (83%) vs services (13%) vs software (2%). Services and software should have higher margins. But since devices is dominant, one might guestimate that the gross margins for devices is in the high 30s.
I didn't calculate the GAAP adjustments; they were provided by Apple in its press release (and I'm sure it's in the 10Q or 10K). To be accurate, Apple refers to them as non-GAAP adjustments, as they adjust the GAAP figures to provide the non-GAAP statements. As samab said (and for once we agree!), the adjustment backs out the deferred income from previous quarters and adds in the actual revenue from the current quarter.
Apple also provides a cost of sales non-GAAP adjustment which backs out deferred costs from previous quarters and adds in the actual costs for the current quarter. So one can get a glimpse of the proportional iPhone/AppleTV costs associated with the revenue. And the margins are huge. (I think we can all agree that the AppleTV revenue is really small relative to iPhone revenue.) And this is what the Financial Alchemist link I provided earlier looks at.
Non-GAAP is much simpler to calculate. It's the GAAP numbers that are manipulated. Non-GAAP is just reporting of current sales and income.
Just because the data plans are in industry norms doesn't mean you are not getting ripped off there as well.
And I guess you are referring to the USA, the smallest cellphone market of them all, there are other markets that sell data for a lot less than the US, and the iPhone take off is much smaller than the US.
Where I live the iPhone is overpriced, the data plans are very overpriced. This is not limited to the iPhone, as other brands are selling for a similar price. Will I buy one, no, they would have to half in price (unsubsidised) before I would look at that. Will I get a dataplan, no, they would have to half in price before I would look at that.
It is a consumers right to refuse to buy something, this argument is not limited to Apple, there are many an industry in the same position with excessive pricing.
By the same token, in the US, we get ripped off every time we open our mouths to eat or rent/buy a place to live in. Because in Vietnam or Thailand or India, the same food item or the same size/quality house is seriously cheaper... But I don't think the people over there think they're getting a good price either.
And in Europe, they get ripped off whenever they use their cars.
Unless you want to be overly pedantic on an Internet message board....
I don't always understand what some people are arguing about. I like to compare two things that are about the same in their attempt to serve the same potential customer.
Sometimes we get someone who doesn't want (or can't afford) the higher prices or rates, and so they argue that they don't make good economic sense. Sometimes it takes a while to get what they're saying sorted out, because of that. So we're arguing past one another.
By the same token, in the US, we get ripped off every time we open our mouths to eat or rent/buy a place to live in. Because in Vietnam or Thailand or India, the same food item or the same size/quality house is seriously cheaper... But I don't think the people over there think they're getting a good price either.
The people in Europe have already been told by Americans they can't compare prices between countries due to local operating costs etc
Comments
I'm not, I asked if the experience he/she was getting from their current phone was twice that of a phone priced half as much. I haven't mentioned a brand there, it was the other user that stated they had an iPhone.
I know for a fact if I was going to purchase an iPhone today, it would cost 4 times what my current phone cost, and the monthly charges would be 2-3 times as high as my current charges. Would I can that much benefit from the iPhone, no I wouldn't, but I am not saying that others will feel the same way.
To each their own. but I'm talking about comparing like to like. That's really the only way one can compare value?if you're looking to the same kind of product.
If your needs are less, then much cheaper phones and services are a better choice.
Actually I believe is included in the Americas figure.
And what does it matter if they group Europe together (they actually have it split in two), they group other regions together as well.
It's just that regions are not markets. What about Japan? That's a separate market? So is Australia.
It's clear that Mexico isn't included in the N. American region of Canada and the US. I don't know why the region isn't broken up with it. It should be the way they've done it otherwise. It's just an arbitrary regional makeup and ranking. It means little.
For example, where's Russia? That's also its own market.
How about Turkey? They consider themselves to be part of Europe?
These breakdowns are nuts.
It's just that regions are not markets. What about Japan? That's a separate market? So is Australia.
It's clear that Mexico isn't included in the N. American region of Canada and the US. I don't know why the region isn't broken up with it. It should be the way they've done it otherwise. It's just an arbitrary regional makeup and ranking. It means little.
For example, where's Russia? That's also its own market.
How about Turkey? They consider themselves to be part of Europe?
These breakdowns are nuts.
How about you go to the GSMA and talk to them about it, I didn't come up with the regions.
but looking at the regions, I was guess that Japan and Australia are in Asia Pacific, and Turkey/Russia in East Europe
How about you go to the GSMA and talk to them about it, I didn't come up with the regions.
but looking at the regions, I was guess that Japan and Australia are in Asia Pacific, and Turkey/Russia in East Europe
I think Turkey is in the Middle Eastern region. Otherwise, it seems as though there are too many connections there.
Whatever, right?
Try again, you are wrong.
How am I wrong?
GSMA is a lobbying group for the GSM manufacturers --- whose job is to make GSM look good. Their statistics are self-serving.
It is a fact that Canada and US have more than 50% of their subscibers are on CDMA carriers --- they don't even have SIM cards, so there is ZERO possibility that they will have double counting for those subscribers. It is a fact that Canada and US are dominated by postpaid subscribers --- both on CDMA and GSM --- so they don't have SIM cards lying around in their desk drawers that gets top up once every 6 months to keep their telephone numbers alive.
The numbers for Canada and US are much more accurate than the rest of the world --- which means that the North America is under-represented in the statistics.
I think Turkey is in the Middle Eastern region. Otherwise, it seems as though there are too many connections there.
Whatever, right?
Asia Pacific is a huge aggregate population, probably about as many people as all the other regions combined, but they're all lumped under one entry.
Looking at the figures, it's not terribly off except for Europe. Elsewhere, it's between 0.5 and 1 "connection" per person. So I guess it's a very rough measure of population. Europe looks to be 2:1, supposedly averaging two devices per person.
I think it's more than a little self-serving to break up every iteration of CDMA into six signal types, but every iteration of GSM simply gets counted as GSM (EDGE, HSDPA, WTFDPA, etc is just GSM). It would seem that the GSM numbers should be good enough that they shouldn't need to feel so insecure as to need to break down the numbers of the competition like that while consolidating their own numbers.
How am I wrong?
GSMA is a lobbying group for the GSM manufacturers --- whose job is to make GSM look good. Their statistics are self-serving.
About Us
The GSMA represents the interests of the worldwide mobile communications industry. Spanning 219 countries, the GSMA unites nearly 800 of the world?s mobile operators, as well as more than 200 companies in the broader mobile ecosystem, including handset makers, software companies, equipment providers, Internet companies, and media and entertainment organisations. The GSMA is focused on innovating, incubating and creating new opportunities for its membership, all with the end goal of driving the growth of the mobile communications industry.
Oh, it is for operators as well, so this one place you were wrong.
The numbers for Canada and US are much more accurate than the rest of the world --- which means that the North America is under-represented in the statistics.
If you are not happy with the numbers, talk to the GSMA about, their contact details are on the site.
Oh, it is for operators as well, so this one place you were wrong.
If you are not happy with the numbers, talk to the GSMA about, their contact details are on the site.
But where am I exactly wrong with my original statement?
Asia Pacific is a huge aggregate population, probably about as many people as all the other regions combined, but they're all lumped under one entry.
Looking at the figures, it's not terribly off except for Europe. Elsewhere, it's between 0.5 and 1 "connection" per person. So I guess it's a very rough measure of population. Europe looks to be 2:1, supposedly averaging two devices per person.
I think it's more than a little self-serving to break up every iteration of CDMA into six signal types, but every iteration of GSM simply gets counted as GSM (EDGE, HSDPA, WTFDPA, etc is just GSM). It would seem that the GSM numbers should be good enough that they shouldn't need to feel so insecure as to need to break down the numbers of the competition like that while consolidating their own numbers.
They count SIM cards as connections, not devices.
This is a very old article back in 2002 --- counting SIM cards were estimated to give you a 20% over-count in mobile penetration.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...3/b3776013.htm
Of course, that was before all those MVNO's springing up, may have even more over count now.
Basically the only statistics you can trust are the US/Canada (where basically 80-90% of their subscribers are postpaid) and Japan/South Korea (where most people still think only criminals would use prepaid cell phones). Co-incidentally, those 4 countries are where the CDMA users are populated.
The iPhone doesn't cost $199, never has, never will
You full well know we know what we mean when we reference that price.
There's no need to play word games; just state what it is you want to say.
Even if we recognize that the analysts used the GAAP adjustment, there is no way that they can accurately forecast operating expenses directly related to any specific product.
But without a declaration of the protocol used in the report we can only assume.
But Apple has also provided non-GAAP adjustments for direct costs associated with iPhone/AppleTV.
So yes, we can't split Apple's R&D and SG&A among Apple products. And Apple doesn't show us the non-deferred quarter's operating costs.
But you should read Turley Muller's analysis of current deferred and non-current deferred costs to see how one might be able to deduce the margin. As I said before, he comes up with higher margins than Sacconaghi.
http://financial-alchemist.blogspot....bstantial.html
This was reported here on AI back on 7/29. I didn't read the forum for that article so I don't know if you objected then as well.
I'm not, I asked if the experience he/she was getting from their current phone was twice that of a phone priced half as much. I haven't mentioned a brand there, it was the other user that stated they had an iPhone.
I know for a fact if I was going to purchase an iPhone today, it would cost 4 times what my current phone cost, and the monthly charges would be 2-3 times as high as my current charges. Would I can that much benefit from the iPhone, no I wouldn't, but I am not saying that others will feel the same way.
I have had my iPhone 3GS for about a month, and I can absolutely say that we (incl my family) are getting a benefit that is worth more than the $47 extra (vs staying with my previous phone without a data plan). How do I arrive at $50 as the value/cost threshold? Phone cost about $320 (incl tax.) Split over 24 months, so that's $13.33/month. (With such low interest rates, the cost of the $320 is negligible on a monthly basis over 24 months.) Add in the $30 data plan plus additional taxes, or approx $33. Rounded, that makes $47/month. With my previous phone, I never used it except to make phone calls; everything else was a huge hassle - several layers of menus and clicks just to do anything.
Suppose I got a different phone for free (like a Blackberry Curve) but also with a $30 data plan. Then the difference is $13.33 per month (actually would be almost $1 less as I'd have had to buy a microSD card). I've used a Blackberry for work and so I can compare, and once again, I'm sure that my family has received a value worth more than $12.50 during this past month.
The apps have made a huge difference - especially the games (mostly free for now) and the apps that make accessing web services so much easier. And for those things where the Blackberry also has the same feature (like music, camera, video, web access), the large screen and ease of use of the iPhone makes it so much better and fun, and for us, much more likely to use.
Asia Pacific is a huge aggregate population, probably about as many people as all the other regions combined, but they're all lumped under one entry.
Looking at the figures, it's not terribly off except for Europe. Elsewhere, it's between 0.5 and 1 "connection" per person. So I guess it's a very rough measure of population. Europe looks to be 2:1, supposedly averaging two devices per person.
I think it's more than a little self-serving to break up every iteration of CDMA into six signal types, but every iteration of GSM simply gets counted as GSM (EDGE, HSDPA, WTFDPA, etc is just GSM). It would seem that the GSM numbers should be good enough that they shouldn't need to feel so insecure as to need to break down the numbers of the competition like that while consolidating their own numbers.
It really is odd, but I suppose that's to be expected. What they are going to say when the various flavors of "4G" come out is anyone's guess.
But I believe that China has more than one standard. It isn't "just" GSM.
But j's point was to show that the USA was the smallest market. The chart, of course, doesn't show that at all.
Mark, how did you calculate the GAAP adjustments? To be accurate you would have to know the actually individual units for each of the 2 iPhones.
As well, could you peruse the RIM CSO relative to this report? http://press.rim.com/release.jsp?id=2248
I didn't calculate the GAAP adjustments; they were provided by Apple in its press release (and I'm sure it's in the 10Q or 10K). To be accurate, Apple refers to them as non-GAAP adjustments, as they adjust the GAAP figures to provide the non-GAAP statements. As samab said (and for once we agree!), the adjustment backs out the deferred income from previous quarters and adds in the actual revenue from the current quarter.
Apple also provides a cost of sales non-GAAP adjustment which backs out deferred costs from previous quarters and adds in the actual costs for the current quarter. So one can get a glimpse of the proportional iPhone/AppleTV costs associated with the revenue. And the margins are huge. (I think we can all agree that the AppleTV revenue is really small relative to iPhone revenue.) And this is what the Financial Alchemist link I provided earlier looks at.
I looked at the RIM report; I'm not sure what you wanted me to see. RIM claims 40% margin overall; their report does not break out the margins for devices (83%) vs services (13%) vs software (2%). Services and software should have higher margins. But since devices is dominant, one might guestimate that the gross margins for devices is in the high 30s.
I didn't calculate the GAAP adjustments; they were provided by Apple in its press release (and I'm sure it's in the 10Q or 10K). To be accurate, Apple refers to them as non-GAAP adjustments, as they adjust the GAAP figures to provide the non-GAAP statements. As samab said (and for once we agree!), the adjustment backs out the deferred income from previous quarters and adds in the actual revenue from the current quarter.
Apple also provides a cost of sales non-GAAP adjustment which backs out deferred costs from previous quarters and adds in the actual costs for the current quarter. So one can get a glimpse of the proportional iPhone/AppleTV costs associated with the revenue. And the margins are huge. (I think we can all agree that the AppleTV revenue is really small relative to iPhone revenue.) And this is what the Financial Alchemist link I provided earlier looks at.
Non-GAAP is much simpler to calculate. It's the GAAP numbers that are manipulated. Non-GAAP is just reporting of current sales and income.
Just because the data plans are in industry norms doesn't mean you are not getting ripped off there as well.
And I guess you are referring to the USA, the smallest cellphone market of them all, there are other markets that sell data for a lot less than the US, and the iPhone take off is much smaller than the US.
Where I live the iPhone is overpriced, the data plans are very overpriced. This is not limited to the iPhone, as other brands are selling for a similar price. Will I buy one, no, they would have to half in price (unsubsidised) before I would look at that. Will I get a dataplan, no, they would have to half in price before I would look at that.
It is a consumers right to refuse to buy something, this argument is not limited to Apple, there are many an industry in the same position with excessive pricing.
By the same token, in the US, we get ripped off every time we open our mouths to eat or rent/buy a place to live in. Because in Vietnam or Thailand or India, the same food item or the same size/quality house is seriously cheaper... But I don't think the people over there think they're getting a good price either.
And in Europe, they get ripped off whenever they use their cars.
This is one twisted argument trying to be made.
In other words, you don't know and you are now justifying your purchase?
Huh? Of course I know. And justify my purchase to who? You? That would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
If your needs are less, then much cheaper phones and services are a better choice.
Unless you want to be overly pedantic on an Internet message board....
Unless you want to be overly pedantic on an Internet message board....
I don't always understand what some people are arguing about. I like to compare two things that are about the same in their attempt to serve the same potential customer.
Sometimes we get someone who doesn't want (or can't afford) the higher prices or rates, and so they argue that they don't make good economic sense. Sometimes it takes a while to get what they're saying sorted out, because of that. So we're arguing past one another.
By the same token, in the US, we get ripped off every time we open our mouths to eat or rent/buy a place to live in. Because in Vietnam or Thailand or India, the same food item or the same size/quality house is seriously cheaper... But I don't think the people over there think they're getting a good price either.
The people in Europe have already been told by Americans they can't compare prices between countries due to local operating costs etc