I think they have learned from the fiasco with the first BB Storm about not having WiFi and may not have the power they once had to force a vendor to remove certain HW and OS features in this emerging era ruled by phones, not carriers, but I think you have a great contender for AT&T?s rebuttal against Verizon.
But something tells me that Verizon don't want the Pre anymore because of its Wifi capability. By the way, Palm removed Wifi from Pixie because Sprint wanted them to. I think carriers still have the upper hand, at least against those with no success
What counts is profit. Return on Investment. That's it.
Apple can stay at 5% market share forever and so long as they're pulling down obscene profit on their investments the savvy shareholder is going to be far, far happier with them than Dell, Microsoft and HP.
But something tells me that Verizon don't want the Pre anymore because of its Wifi capability. By the way, Palm removed Wifi from Pixie because Sprint wanted them to. I think carriers still have the upper hand, at least against those with no success
I hope not, it?s a scary thought to think that Sprint can make any vendor do anything. That is like saying a mentally challenged person could be president for 8 years? oh wait?
What counts is profit. Return on Investment. That's it.
Apple can stay at 5% market share forever and so long as they're pulling down obscene profit on their investments the savvy shareholder is going to be far, far happier with them than Dell, Microsoft and HP.
I took it ROI and profits were taken as standard and was only replying about Market share versus sales figures.
Apple have performed very well in the recession like times.
What if the market has shrunk? What if you increase your share despite selling less units?
How about gaining massive market share by slashing your profits down to zero?
The "savvy" shareholder will be asking "What have you done with my fuckin' money?"
Stick to the Monopoly board game.
Same could be said for sales figures YOu were mentioning in terms of 3.5 to 10 Million units (complete rubbish and clueless). You may need Monopoly game more than me.
I don't get why people continue to blame AT&T's network troubles on the iphone especially when it come to MMS and 3G. I look at this way, Apple has sold so many millions of iPhones in the US on AT&T's network, right? Well do you think all those people didn't have cell phones before? I know a lot of people have switched to AT&T but lets just face it AT&T should have been prepared. We live in a world of capitalism and I'm not going to pay $100 a month for poor services.
That's great but marketshare in the real world counts… […]
Marketshare is only a metric for comparison. It doesn’t state profit or unit sales. It works for marketing but that is because it’s a superficial metric and it’s only really valid if you’re still maintaining profits and unit sales.
You can decrease in marketshare, but if your unit sales and profits are increasing each YoY quarter then you are doing well. Look at Acer. They are jumping up in the PC marketshare because of netbooks and their purchase of Gateway. They best Apple in the rankings, but Apple is still selling more units each quarter at a profit so it’s all good. By your measure, it would be better for Apple to sell 1 million iPod Shuffles than 500,000 iPod Touches, because the Shuffle would positively affect marketshare more, but it wouldn’t give them the same profit that an iPod Touch does.
Marketshare is only a metric for comparison. It doesn?t state profit or unit sales. It works for marketing but that is because it?s a superficial metric and it?s only really valid if you?re still maintaining profits and unit sales.
You can decrease in marketshare, but if your unit sales and profits are increasing each YoY quarter then you are doing well. ...
Marketshare is only a metric for comparison. It doesn?t state profit or unit sales. It works for marketing but that is because it?s a superficial metric and it?s only really valid if you?re still maintaining profits and unit sales.
You can decrease in marketshare, but if your unit sales and profits are increasing each YoY quarter then you are doing well. Look at Acer. They are jumping up in the PC marketshare because of netbooks and their purchase of Gateway. They best Apple in the rankings, but Apple is still selling more units each quarter at a profit so it?s all good. By your measure, it would be better for Apple to sell 1 million iPod Shuffles than 500,000 iPod Touches, because the Shuffle would positively affect marketshare more, but it would give them the same profit that an iPod Touch does.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
I already said i agree, just replying to comment about sales figures and marketshare. probably should have been more clear, but nice explanation.
I look at this way, Apple has sold so many millions of iPhones in the US on AT&T's network, right? Well do you think all those people didn't have cell phones before?
It?s not a unit-to-unit problem, it?s the amount of data that the iPhone uses over previous phones. This is a twofold issue. First, you have the iPhone using considerably more data than any other cellphone on the market according to web stats. Second, the iPhone is the first smartphone that has widely appealed to the average person causing a considerable migration to the smartphone segment in general.
You?re right that AT&T wasn?t prepared for how much it would tax their network, but I don?t think Apple had any idea and I don?t think any US carrier would have been immune to the iPhone?s popularity.
no issues, you give very nice example, which was much easier to understand then words
My example would have been better if Apple actually decreased in marketshare YoY, but they did go up by 0.2%. \
I speculate that Apple may start to lose marketshare as less developed countries start to get more cheap PCs IF Apple doesn?t come out with a new MacBook line. To me, it looks like they have saturated the $1000+ market pretty thoroughly with 92%. I am expecting a 13? and 15? MacBook, the 15? still being over $1000+ but several hundred dollars cheaper than the 15? MBP, which will open up to more potential consumers while still maintaining their profit margins. (again, speculation)
I don’t think any US carrier would have been immune to the iPhone’s popularity.
More than iPhone's popularity is the documented overuseage of data on the iPhone itself that was not anticipated. Let's keep facts straight as much as we love our iPhones - they are data guzzlers, Hummers if you will.
I am not passing any judgement on the article or the ad but I am surprised Apple didn't get some copyright coverage on the exact phrase "There's an app for that!".
Uh... you can't copyright a phrase that's different from the one you used....
Uh... you can't copyright a phrase that's different from the one you used....
I think it could also be argued that it’s considered a parody derivative work under United States Copyright Law.
Quote:
The Supreme Court of the United States stated that parody "is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works."
It’s not a unit-to-unit problem, it’s the amount of data that the iPhone uses over previous phones. This is a twofold issue. First, you have the iPhone using considerably more data than any other cellphone on the market according to web stats. Second, the iPhone is the first smartphone that has widely appealed to the average person causing a considerable migration to the smartphone segment in general.
You’re right that AT&T wasn’t prepared for how much it would tax their network, but I don’t think Apple had any idea and I don’t think any US carrier would have been immune to the iPhone’s popularity.
+1
Before I bought the original iPhone, I had a Nokia that I absolutely loved. It was very small and had an unfolding keyboard for lots of texting. I could not send MMS though. And I sent very few emails since it was such a convoluted process. It had a camera, but the pictures were so bad that I hardly ever used it. It had no WiFi and as far as I know, I couldn't put any apps on it. But like I said, I loved this phone for its size and keyboard and I had it for FOUR years, with AT&T.
Then the iPhone came out. I loved the screen size and onscreen keyboard. But I had to see it to make a decision. When I saw how easily it slid into my pocket I was sold. So by then I was pretty much in the same place as my old Nokia phone.
Then I saw how easy it was setting up email, so all my email now comes through my phone....every 30 minutes. Maps? I use it every time I need to find a business or address. And web browsing...to be honest I still don't browse the web too much, but I do at least once or twice a day. Multiply me times several thousands and I think that's how AT&T got overwhelmed, literally overnight (iPhone launch). And then, the apps came out. My dozen or so apps, most of which access the internet, Facebook, Google, Shazam, my bank's app, ....etc. most I use every day, or several times a day. I'm sure AT&T is trying to upgrade their network as fast as possible, but I just think they can't keep up with more and more people coming online every day. And I don't think any other carrier would be in any different situation than AT&T is today, had they had the iPhone.
Comments
I think they have learned from the fiasco with the first BB Storm about not having WiFi and may not have the power they once had to force a vendor to remove certain HW and OS features in this emerging era ruled by phones, not carriers, but I think you have a great contender for AT&T?s rebuttal against Verizon.
But something tells me that Verizon don't want the Pre anymore because of its Wifi capability. By the way, Palm removed Wifi from Pixie because Sprint wanted them to. I think carriers still have the upper hand, at least against those with no success
No, it doesn't.
What counts is profit. Return on Investment. That's it.
Apple can stay at 5% market share forever and so long as they're pulling down obscene profit on their investments the savvy shareholder is going to be far, far happier with them than Dell, Microsoft and HP.
Precisely.
But something tells me that Verizon don't want the Pre anymore because of its Wifi capability. By the way, Palm removed Wifi from Pixie because Sprint wanted them to. I think carriers still have the upper hand, at least against those with no success
I hope not, it?s a scary thought to think that Sprint can make any vendor do anything. That is like saying a mentally challenged person could be president for 8 years? oh wait?
No, it doesn't.
What counts is profit. Return on Investment. That's it.
Apple can stay at 5% market share forever and so long as they're pulling down obscene profit on their investments the savvy shareholder is going to be far, far happier with them than Dell, Microsoft and HP.
I took it ROI and profits were taken as standard and was only replying about Market share versus sales figures.
Apple have performed very well in the recession like times.
Rubbish! All of the above.
What if the market has shrunk? What if you increase your share despite selling less units?
How about gaining massive market share by slashing your profits down to zero?
The "savvy" shareholder will be asking "What have you done with my fuckin' money?"
Stick to the Monopoly board game.
Same could be said for sales figures YOu were mentioning in terms of 3.5 to 10 Million units (complete rubbish and clueless). You may need Monopoly game more than me.
Maybe this will help you http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=finan...=NASDAQ%3AAAPL
Only thing is, until Verizon goes LTE, they are stuck on CDMA which is a dead end these days, and works very few places outside the US...
Where is tethering AT&T?!
2 Android phones coming to Verizon!!!!
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/1...ks-android/?hp
That's great but marketshare in the real world counts… […]
Marketshare is only a metric for comparison. It doesn’t state profit or unit sales. It works for marketing but that is because it’s a superficial metric and it’s only really valid if you’re still maintaining profits and unit sales.
You can decrease in marketshare, but if your unit sales and profits are increasing each YoY quarter then you are doing well. Look at Acer. They are jumping up in the PC marketshare because of netbooks and their purchase of Gateway. They best Apple in the rankings, but Apple is still selling more units each quarter at a profit so it’s all good. By your measure, it would be better for Apple to sell 1 million iPod Shuffles than 500,000 iPod Touches, because the Shuffle would positively affect marketshare more, but it wouldn’t give them the same profit that an iPod Touch does.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Marketshare is only a metric for comparison. It doesn?t state profit or unit sales. It works for marketing but that is because it?s a superficial metric and it?s only really valid if you?re still maintaining profits and unit sales.
You can decrease in marketshare, but if your unit sales and profits are increasing each YoY quarter then you are doing well. ...
Good illustration of the principle!
Marketshare is only a metric for comparison. It doesn?t state profit or unit sales. It works for marketing but that is because it?s a superficial metric and it?s only really valid if you?re still maintaining profits and unit sales.
You can decrease in marketshare, but if your unit sales and profits are increasing each YoY quarter then you are doing well. Look at Acer. They are jumping up in the PC marketshare because of netbooks and their purchase of Gateway. They best Apple in the rankings, but Apple is still selling more units each quarter at a profit so it?s all good. By your measure, it would be better for Apple to sell 1 million iPod Shuffles than 500,000 iPod Touches, because the Shuffle would positively affect marketshare more, but it would give them the same profit that an iPod Touch does.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
I already said i agree, just replying to comment about sales figures and marketshare. probably should have been more clear, but nice explanation.
I look at this way, Apple has sold so many millions of iPhones in the US on AT&T's network, right? Well do you think all those people didn't have cell phones before?
It?s not a unit-to-unit problem, it?s the amount of data that the iPhone uses over previous phones. This is a twofold issue. First, you have the iPhone using considerably more data than any other cellphone on the market according to web stats. Second, the iPhone is the first smartphone that has widely appealed to the average person causing a considerable migration to the smartphone segment in general.
You?re right that AT&T wasn?t prepared for how much it would tax their network, but I don?t think Apple had any idea and I don?t think any US carrier would have been immune to the iPhone?s popularity.
I already said i agree, just replying to comment about sales figures and marketshare. probably should have been more clear, but nice explanation.
Mea culpa? I got into this thread a bit late.
Mea culpa… I got into this thread a bit late.
no issues, you give very nice example, which was much easier to understand then words
no issues, you give very nice example, which was much easier to understand then words
My example would have been better if Apple actually decreased in marketshare YoY, but they did go up by 0.2%.
I speculate that Apple may start to lose marketshare as less developed countries start to get more cheap PCs IF Apple doesn?t come out with a new MacBook line. To me, it looks like they have saturated the $1000+ market pretty thoroughly with 92%. I am expecting a 13? and 15? MacBook, the 15? still being over $1000+ but several hundred dollars cheaper than the 15? MBP, which will open up to more potential consumers while still maintaining their profit margins. (again, speculation)
I don’t think any US carrier would have been immune to the iPhone’s popularity.
More than iPhone's popularity is the documented overuseage of data on the iPhone itself that was not anticipated. Let's keep facts straight as much as we love our iPhones - they are data guzzlers, Hummers if you will.
I am not passing any judgement on the article or the ad but I am surprised Apple didn't get some copyright coverage on the exact phrase "There's an app for that!".
Uh... you can't copyright a phrase that's different from the one you used....
Uh... you can't copyright a phrase that's different from the one you used....
I think it could also be argued that it’s considered a parody derivative work under United States Copyright Law.
The Supreme Court of the United States stated that parody "is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works."
It’s not a unit-to-unit problem, it’s the amount of data that the iPhone uses over previous phones. This is a twofold issue. First, you have the iPhone using considerably more data than any other cellphone on the market according to web stats. Second, the iPhone is the first smartphone that has widely appealed to the average person causing a considerable migration to the smartphone segment in general.
You’re right that AT&T wasn’t prepared for how much it would tax their network, but I don’t think Apple had any idea and I don’t think any US carrier would have been immune to the iPhone’s popularity.
+1
Before I bought the original iPhone, I had a Nokia that I absolutely loved. It was very small and had an unfolding keyboard for lots of texting. I could not send MMS though. And I sent very few emails since it was such a convoluted process. It had a camera, but the pictures were so bad that I hardly ever used it. It had no WiFi and as far as I know, I couldn't put any apps on it. But like I said, I loved this phone for its size and keyboard and I had it for FOUR years, with AT&T.
Then the iPhone came out. I loved the screen size and onscreen keyboard. But I had to see it to make a decision. When I saw how easily it slid into my pocket I was sold. So by then I was pretty much in the same place as my old Nokia phone.
Then I saw how easy it was setting up email, so all my email now comes through my phone....every 30 minutes. Maps? I use it every time I need to find a business or address. And web browsing...to be honest I still don't browse the web too much, but I do at least once or twice a day. Multiply me times several thousands and I think that's how AT&T got overwhelmed, literally overnight (iPhone launch). And then, the apps came out. My dozen or so apps, most of which access the internet, Facebook, Google, Shazam, my bank's app, ....etc. most I use every day, or several times a day. I'm sure AT&T is trying to upgrade their network as fast as possible, but I just think they can't keep up with more and more people coming online every day. And I don't think any other carrier would be in any different situation than AT&T is today, had they had the iPhone.
I hope somewhere the executives of AT&T are steaming and, thus, picking up the pace on their infrastructure efforts to beat VZ to LTE.