Are you Tekstuds cousin or something? How many iPhone models are available in stores today . That is the question, is it not? I see 3 ... 3G, 16g 3Gs and a 32g 3Gs ... count with me now 1,2,3 .... there, wasn't that easy?
So then make sure you correct the member that said there was only one iPhone model. Its funny how selective we are on this forum.
So then make sure you correct the member that said there was only one iPhone model. Its funny how selective we are on this forum.
It's not being selective.. When worldwide market share figures are being tallied, those figures are not broken down by Model > Storage capacity > Color. They are simply broken down by Model, and that would be iPhone.
Like I said Rim have very specific different models of phones.. Bold, Curve, Storm, etc. etc. Those are different models, iPhone, whether 16 or 32 gb are not different models (for market-share purposes at least..)
It's not being selective.. When worldwide market share figures are being tallied, those figures are not broken down by Model > Storage capacity > Color. They are simply broken down by Model, and that would be iPhone.
Like I said Rim have very specific different models of phones.. Bold, Curve, Storm, etc. etc. Those are different models, iPhone, whether 16 or 32 gb are not different models (for market-share purposes at least..)
Actually when stats are done rating the top smartphones they use the iPhone 3g and 3Gs. At least they were in 2009. That may have changed in 2010. Also I can never understand why anyone cares about market share. If you like your phone who the hell cares where it places or how much market share it has.
Clearly APPL stock isn't reflective of how Apple is doing. The stock dropped like a rock again today. Thats with record sales and the iPad which was suppose to be the biggest tech offering this year.
Are you Tekstuds cousin or something? How many iPhone models are available in stores today . That is the question, is it not? I see 3 ... 3G, 16g 3Gs and a 32g 3Gs ... count with me now 1,2,3 .... there, wasn't that easy?
Like I said in above post, we are talking about models for MARKETSHARE purposes. The storage capacity do not matter, they are still condsidered just an iPhone..
They are not different product models like an iPod shuffle, an iPod nano, an iPod touch or an iPod classic..
See the difference?
IDC would never be able to breakdown numbers by model and storage capacity..
Actually when stats are done rating the top smartphones they use the iPhone 3g and 3Gs. At least they were in 2009. They may have changed in 2010. Also I can never understand why anyone cares about market share. If you like your phone who the hell cares where it places or how much market share it has.
Clearly APPL stock isn't reflective of how Apple is doing. The stock dropped like a rock again today.
Yes, you're right, 3G and 3GS are two different models.. However, storage capacity does not qualify as a different model. So Apple has 2.
... A smartphone is a cellphone with e-mail - an old BlackBerry, a Blackjack, maybe a Treo. This new category - somewhere between cellphones and laptops, or even beyond them - deserves a name of its own."...
This is kind of what I suspected (that the definition was really, really broad).
I bet it even covers any phone that is merely capable of doing email or web, regardless of whether it's actually used. For instance some phones *can* do email, if you sign up for an email account with the carrier, but most people will never do that and the sellers of the phone don't even expect many to do so. It's just an extra feature the manufacturer supplies on the request of the carrier.
To the guy that said I was hair-spliting, I think you missed my point. I was just trying to reconcile the huge numbers that Nokia gets with the real world experience of hardly ever seeing any one use any of Nokias smartphones (even in Europe).
Smartphone stats seem to be as skewed in their own way, as desktop OS stats are in their own way. Sure >95% of the world uses Windows, but if you leave out the huge corporations, the call centres, and all the people who have to use it because it's their job it's more like 75% or even 60%.
North America accounts for 5% of the world's population. Nokia has rockstar status outside of North America. Also, many people are willing to put up with a slightly less good phone if it saves them several hundred dollars. Please don't assume that everyone thinks like yourself. Actually, it's mostly cheap candybar phones that Nokia is known for. Nokia's top three smartphone sellers are the N97, 5800 and E71. Do you agree that these three models are smartphones? If not, why not? Every single Nokia smartphone runs either Symbian or Maemo. Both are smartphone operating systems by any accepted definition. ...
Ignorance is a common trait.
...
I don't really see what your point is here other than being a d*ck. You've gone through my post and made some snarky remarks and pointed out some minor errors, but you haven't substantially addressed anything that I said (although I get that you probably disagree with me). It's also full of more assumptions (about me) than mine had about Nokia.
This is more like mental masturbation than an actual debate. For that reason you may note that my reply similarly contains nothing substantial, and that I don't actually want to engage you in said debate.
And what is wrong with that? Nokia's goal is a smartphone for everyone. Not just those who can afford a phone that retails for $620 (the price Apple says they get for every iPhone 3GS). So, as an Indian, when you can get a touch screen smartphone with free GPS navigation for $100 what are you going to do?
Keep beating to that drum right into the trash bin as your profits collapse.
It seems that in some people twisted thinking if a company market share for a product dropped from 67% to 38% then that company is doing great. But if another company increased its market share, for the same product, from 0% to 14% for the same period then this company is doing bad. Go figure.
Apple is the one in trouble now. If you read the last story about this Apple is growing at LESS than the market rate and their Q4 was terrible.
Their share price dropped after their last results because analysts were disappointed with the iPhone sales for Q4.
I can understand you being bitter for the collapse in any meaningful relevance in the global Smartphone market of your beloved Nokia but even you for you that is just pathetic.
NOTE: this rant isn't about the superiority of the iPhone above all others but more generally that Nokia et al have dropped the ball vs. iPhone OS/Android/WebOS. This may be perhaps irretrievable - like when you kick your ball into the evil neighbor's yard where the big dog is - just give up or by a new ball - or maybe not?
Cherry picking a headline that was dubious at best and pretending that that negates the market leading growth in iPhone shipments, iPod sales, Mac unit sales, share of net industry income, mobile web surfing share, computers above $1000 etc. is just laughable.
To your point - Nokia had its chance to be relevant and blew it (so far) - it has Symbian and Maemo all over its face. Selling 10M N and E series phones across all models vs. nearly 9 mil iPhones is the real statistic and even that is being kind to Nokia (E-series are OK but hardly close to par with iPhone/N1/Droid etc.) Let's face it, the old handset guys were caught on the hop by the superphone revolution and had too much pride to realize that they are just not good at what makes a successful phone these days. Palm are the only ones who have made the leap and for them it is probably too little too late for scale and market reasons (to be seen). The Koreans (LG/Samsung) have already bitten the bullet with Android phones (although they still have pockets of belief that they can take on Apple/Google at SW platforms). HTC are the only ones who have seen the light and realized that SW is not their thing anymore and got onto 2 bandwagons (WinMob and now Android).
Today, the old line phone makers are coasting by on distribution, price and brand recognition in the decreasing number of markets without iPhone/Android phones. Witter on about India all you like but as superphone distribution picks up there, Nokia will decline if all they bring is their current weak game. The middle class in India are getting more sophisticated and affluent at equal and rapid speed. None of that bodes well for Nokia's anemic options.
In most of the world, iPhones are free with a mid/high end contract, and subsidized wit a low end contract (see UK). Even in the US, a 3G is $49 refurbed from AT&T with a contract. Price is not the obstacle. Unlocked price is a red herring in many markets and where it isn't the N-series are not appreciably cheaper than iPhone.
Nokia are big enough and smart enough to turn things around but to pretend they are not in a world of hurt about having their lunch eaten by competitors they didn't even know existed 36 months ago, you are smoking some primo stuff. It passes the long nights in a Finnish winter no doubt...
Keep beating to that drum right into the trash bin as your profits collapse.
How so? Nokia charges pretty astronomical prices for their high end models while making conservative models with less horsepower and saving cash as well. As long as people buy their phones they are making a profit
Apple is notorious for having high profit margins, should there be an "iPhone killer" it will be not only because of the phone but the price to carriers.
How so? Nokia charges pretty astronomical prices for their high end models while making conservative models with less horsepower and saving cash as well. As long as people buy their phones they are making a profit
Apple is notorious for having high profit margins, should there be an "iPhone killer" it will be not only because of the phone but the price to carriers.
Basic business logic dictates that it is not true at all that if people buy them they must make profit - that's how people make a loss. That said, it is very unlikely that Nokia sells much if any of its current phones at a loss but almost certainly at a much lower percentage and absolute $ profit than Apple. This is the prime contributor to cash available for investing in R&D, acquisitions etc.
Nokia is not poor but can now be casually outspent by Apple in all kinds of areas (R&D, advanced component procurement, etc.) Again - Nokia isn't dead yet but the trends are not good. Of course, one could have said the same for Apple in the mid-90's and look at it now - never say never...
Note that Carriers in most developed or more affluent sectors of developing markets don't care so much about price to them as total lifetime income from a phone - a $600 (which they sell for $300) phone that nets them $2600 in 2yrs of fees is a way better deal to a carrier than a $100 phone that nets $960 over 2 years. The iPhone may be the exception where it nets you $2300 in fees per subscriber but costs you $25Bn in network upgrades ;-)
I don't really see what your point is here other than being a d*ck. You've gone through my post and made some snarky remarks and pointed out some minor errors, but you haven't substantially addressed anything that I said (although I get that you probably disagree with me). It's also full of more assumptions (about me) than mine had about Nokia.
Apologises. You're right, I assumed that you had very limited exposure to both Nokia's global dominance and the phones themselves. I could well be very wrong.
By the way, the definition of a smartphone used by the New York Times (i.e. a phone capable of e-mail) is not the definition used within the industry. All of the main analysts (including IDC) use something along the lines of the first definition on Wikipedia. In otherwords, "a smartphone is a phone that runs complete operating system software providing a standardized interface and platform for application developers". Bloggers, journalists and the general public tend to have a looser idea of what a smartphone is.
It seems that in some people twisted thinking if a company market share for a product dropped from 67% to 38% then that company is doing great. But if another company increased its market share, for the same product, from 0% to 14% for the same period then this company is doing bad. Go figure.
But in the same time that market has grown, so the 38% now is a lot bigger than when it had 67% a while back
In most of the world, iPhones are free with a mid/high end contract, and subsidized wit a low end contract (see UK). Even in the US, a 3G is $49 refurbed from AT&T with a contract. Price is not the obstacle. Unlocked price is a red herring in many markets and where it isn't the N-series are not appreciably cheaper than iPhone.
You edited your post, and put down "evidence" as the reason, yet no where in the post is there any evidence, got a link or two to back up your "most of the world" quote?
Always room for improvement. I'll be happy when the iPhone is number one.
Basically, these numbers tell us that the iPhone is the #1 smartphone in the world, but Apple is the #3 smartphone manufacturer in the world..
Apple shipped 25 million smartphones in 2009.
Nokia shipped 67 million smartphones in 2009.
Even though Nokia shipped many more smartphones, they also have many more smartphones than Apple has. For discussion sake, lets assume Nokia had 10 different smartphones shipping in 2009, 67 million divided by 10 = 6.7 million for each model.. Extremely rough numbers of course, but all of Apple's 25 million smartphones were iPhones.. So, It is extremely doubtful that Nokia or RIM have any one phone that shipped more than 25 million.
I think you can be happy Anyone disagree with this thinking?
But in the same time that market has grown, so the 38% now is a lot bigger than when it had 67% a while back
The market growth applies to all carrier (Apple, RIM, and others) and not only Nokia. The fact is Nokia is losing market share year-over-year regardless of market growth while Apple and RIM market share is growing.
Oh, and based on the reported 15% market growth, 38% market share today is not bigger than 67% three years ago, which confirm what we already know and that is Nokia growth is slower than the overall market growth. Check your math.
Comments
Are you Tekstuds cousin or something? How many iPhone models are available in stores today . That is the question, is it not? I see 3 ... 3G, 16g 3Gs and a 32g 3Gs ... count with me now 1,2,3 .... there, wasn't that easy?
So then make sure you correct the member that said there was only one iPhone model. Its funny how selective we are on this forum.
So then make sure you correct the member that said there was only one iPhone model. Its funny how selective we are on this forum.
It's not being selective.. When worldwide market share figures are being tallied, those figures are not broken down by Model > Storage capacity > Color. They are simply broken down by Model, and that would be iPhone.
Like I said Rim have very specific different models of phones.. Bold, Curve, Storm, etc. etc. Those are different models, iPhone, whether 16 or 32 gb are not different models (for market-share purposes at least..)
It's not being selective.. When worldwide market share figures are being tallied, those figures are not broken down by Model > Storage capacity > Color. They are simply broken down by Model, and that would be iPhone.
Like I said Rim have very specific different models of phones.. Bold, Curve, Storm, etc. etc. Those are different models, iPhone, whether 16 or 32 gb are not different models (for market-share purposes at least..)
Actually when stats are done rating the top smartphones they use the iPhone 3g and 3Gs. At least they were in 2009. That may have changed in 2010. Also I can never understand why anyone cares about market share. If you like your phone who the hell cares where it places or how much market share it has.
Clearly APPL stock isn't reflective of how Apple is doing. The stock dropped like a rock again today. Thats with record sales and the iPad which was suppose to be the biggest tech offering this year.
Are you Tekstuds cousin or something? How many iPhone models are available in stores today . That is the question, is it not? I see 3 ... 3G, 16g 3Gs and a 32g 3Gs ... count with me now 1,2,3 .... there, wasn't that easy?
Like I said in above post, we are talking about models for MARKETSHARE purposes. The storage capacity do not matter, they are still condsidered just an iPhone..
They are not different product models like an iPod shuffle, an iPod nano, an iPod touch or an iPod classic..
See the difference?
IDC would never be able to breakdown numbers by model and storage capacity..
Actually when stats are done rating the top smartphones they use the iPhone 3g and 3Gs. At least they were in 2009. They may have changed in 2010. Also I can never understand why anyone cares about market share. If you like your phone who the hell cares where it places or how much market share it has.
Clearly APPL stock isn't reflective of how Apple is doing. The stock dropped like a rock again today.
Yes, you're right, 3G and 3GS are two different models.. However, storage capacity does not qualify as a different model. So Apple has 2.
... A smartphone is a cellphone with e-mail - an old BlackBerry, a Blackjack, maybe a Treo. This new category - somewhere between cellphones and laptops, or even beyond them - deserves a name of its own."...
This is kind of what I suspected (that the definition was really, really broad).
I bet it even covers any phone that is merely capable of doing email or web, regardless of whether it's actually used. For instance some phones *can* do email, if you sign up for an email account with the carrier, but most people will never do that and the sellers of the phone don't even expect many to do so. It's just an extra feature the manufacturer supplies on the request of the carrier.
To the guy that said I was hair-spliting, I think you missed my point. I was just trying to reconcile the huge numbers that Nokia gets with the real world experience of hardly ever seeing any one use any of Nokias smartphones (even in Europe).
Smartphone stats seem to be as skewed in their own way, as desktop OS stats are in their own way. Sure >95% of the world uses Windows, but if you leave out the huge corporations, the call centres, and all the people who have to use it because it's their job it's more like 75% or even 60%.
North America accounts for 5% of the world's population. Nokia has rockstar status outside of North America. Also, many people are willing to put up with a slightly less good phone if it saves them several hundred dollars. Please don't assume that everyone thinks like yourself. Actually, it's mostly cheap candybar phones that Nokia is known for. Nokia's top three smartphone sellers are the N97, 5800 and E71. Do you agree that these three models are smartphones? If not, why not? Every single Nokia smartphone runs either Symbian or Maemo. Both are smartphone operating systems by any accepted definition. ...
Ignorance is a common trait.
...
I don't really see what your point is here other than being a d*ck. You've gone through my post and made some snarky remarks and pointed out some minor errors, but you haven't substantially addressed anything that I said (although I get that you probably disagree with me). It's also full of more assumptions (about me) than mine had about Nokia.
This is more like mental masturbation than an actual debate. For that reason you may note that my reply similarly contains nothing substantial, and that I don't actually want to engage you in said debate.
Have a nice day.
And what is wrong with that? Nokia's goal is a smartphone for everyone. Not just those who can afford a phone that retails for $620 (the price Apple says they get for every iPhone 3GS). So, as an Indian, when you can get a touch screen smartphone with free GPS navigation for $100 what are you going to do?
Keep beating to that drum right into the trash bin as your profits collapse.
Apple is doomed!™
That's my trademark. Thanks using the ™
It seems that in some people twisted thinking if a company market share for a product dropped from 67% to 38% then that company is doing great. But if another company increased its market share, for the same product, from 0% to 14% for the same period then this company is doing bad. Go figure.
Apple is the one in trouble now. If you read the last story about this Apple is growing at LESS than the market rate and their Q4 was terrible.
Their share price dropped after their last results because analysts were disappointed with the iPhone sales for Q4.
I can understand you being bitter for the collapse in any meaningful relevance in the global Smartphone market of your beloved Nokia but even you for you that is just pathetic.
NOTE: this rant isn't about the superiority of the iPhone above all others but more generally that Nokia et al have dropped the ball vs. iPhone OS/Android/WebOS. This may be perhaps irretrievable - like when you kick your ball into the evil neighbor's yard where the big dog is - just give up or by a new ball - or maybe not?
Cherry picking a headline that was dubious at best and pretending that that negates the market leading growth in iPhone shipments, iPod sales, Mac unit sales, share of net industry income, mobile web surfing share, computers above $1000 etc. is just laughable.
To your point - Nokia had its chance to be relevant and blew it (so far) - it has Symbian and Maemo all over its face. Selling 10M N and E series phones across all models vs. nearly 9 mil iPhones is the real statistic and even that is being kind to Nokia (E-series are OK but hardly close to par with iPhone/N1/Droid etc.) Let's face it, the old handset guys were caught on the hop by the superphone revolution and had too much pride to realize that they are just not good at what makes a successful phone these days. Palm are the only ones who have made the leap and for them it is probably too little too late for scale and market reasons (to be seen). The Koreans (LG/Samsung) have already bitten the bullet with Android phones (although they still have pockets of belief that they can take on Apple/Google at SW platforms). HTC are the only ones who have seen the light and realized that SW is not their thing anymore and got onto 2 bandwagons (WinMob and now Android).
Today, the old line phone makers are coasting by on distribution, price and brand recognition in the decreasing number of markets without iPhone/Android phones. Witter on about India all you like but as superphone distribution picks up there, Nokia will decline if all they bring is their current weak game. The middle class in India are getting more sophisticated and affluent at equal and rapid speed. None of that bodes well for Nokia's anemic options.
In most of the world, iPhones are free with a mid/high end contract, and subsidized wit a low end contract (see UK). Even in the US, a 3G is $49 refurbed from AT&T with a contract. Price is not the obstacle. Unlocked price is a red herring in many markets and where it isn't the N-series are not appreciably cheaper than iPhone.
Nokia are big enough and smart enough to turn things around but to pretend they are not in a world of hurt about having their lunch eaten by competitors they didn't even know existed 36 months ago, you are smoking some primo stuff. It passes the long nights in a Finnish winter no doubt...
Keep beating to that drum right into the trash bin as your profits collapse.
How so? Nokia charges pretty astronomical prices for their high end models while making conservative models with less horsepower and saving cash as well. As long as people buy their phones they are making a profit
Apple is notorious for having high profit margins, should there be an "iPhone killer" it will be not only because of the phone but the price to carriers.
How so? Nokia charges pretty astronomical prices for their high end models while making conservative models with less horsepower and saving cash as well. As long as people buy their phones they are making a profit
Apple is notorious for having high profit margins, should there be an "iPhone killer" it will be not only because of the phone but the price to carriers.
Basic business logic dictates that it is not true at all that if people buy them they must make profit - that's how people make a loss. That said, it is very unlikely that Nokia sells much if any of its current phones at a loss but almost certainly at a much lower percentage and absolute $ profit than Apple. This is the prime contributor to cash available for investing in R&D, acquisitions etc.
Nokia is not poor but can now be casually outspent by Apple in all kinds of areas (R&D, advanced component procurement, etc.) Again - Nokia isn't dead yet but the trends are not good. Of course, one could have said the same for Apple in the mid-90's and look at it now - never say never...
Note that Carriers in most developed or more affluent sectors of developing markets don't care so much about price to them as total lifetime income from a phone - a $600 (which they sell for $300) phone that nets them $2600 in 2yrs of fees is a way better deal to a carrier than a $100 phone that nets $960 over 2 years. The iPhone may be the exception where it nets you $2300 in fees per subscriber but costs you $25Bn in network upgrades ;-)
I don't really see what your point is here other than being a d*ck. You've gone through my post and made some snarky remarks and pointed out some minor errors, but you haven't substantially addressed anything that I said (although I get that you probably disagree with me). It's also full of more assumptions (about me) than mine had about Nokia.
Apologises. You're right, I assumed that you had very limited exposure to both Nokia's global dominance and the phones themselves. I could well be very wrong.
By the way, the definition of a smartphone used by the New York Times (i.e. a phone capable of e-mail) is not the definition used within the industry. All of the main analysts (including IDC) use something along the lines of the first definition on Wikipedia. In otherwords, "a smartphone is a phone that runs complete operating system software providing a standardized interface and platform for application developers". Bloggers, journalists and the general public tend to have a looser idea of what a smartphone is.
That's my trademark. Thanks using the ?
It seems that in some people twisted thinking if a company market share for a product dropped from 67% to 38% then that company is doing great. But if another company increased its market share, for the same product, from 0% to 14% for the same period then this company is doing bad. Go figure.
But in the same time that market has grown, so the 38% now is a lot bigger than when it had 67% a while back
In most of the world, iPhones are free with a mid/high end contract, and subsidized wit a low end contract (see UK). Even in the US, a 3G is $49 refurbed from AT&T with a contract. Price is not the obstacle. Unlocked price is a red herring in many markets and where it isn't the N-series are not appreciably cheaper than iPhone.
You edited your post, and put down "evidence" as the reason, yet no where in the post is there any evidence, got a link or two to back up your "most of the world" quote?
Always room for improvement. I'll be happy when the iPhone is number one.
Basically, these numbers tell us that the iPhone is the #1 smartphone in the world, but Apple is the #3 smartphone manufacturer in the world..
Apple shipped 25 million smartphones in 2009.
Nokia shipped 67 million smartphones in 2009.
Even though Nokia shipped many more smartphones, they also have many more smartphones than Apple has. For discussion sake, lets assume Nokia had 10 different smartphones shipping in 2009, 67 million divided by 10 = 6.7 million for each model.. Extremely rough numbers of course, but all of Apple's 25 million smartphones were iPhones.. So, It is extremely doubtful that Nokia or RIM have any one phone that shipped more than 25 million.
I think you can be happy
But in the same time that market has grown, so the 38% now is a lot bigger than when it had 67% a while back
The market growth applies to all carrier (Apple, RIM, and others) and not only Nokia. The fact is Nokia is losing market share year-over-year regardless of market growth while Apple and RIM market share is growing.
Oh, and based on the reported 15% market growth, 38% market share today is not bigger than 67% three years ago, which confirm what we already know and that is Nokia growth is slower than the overall market growth. Check your math.
That's my trademark. Thanks using the ?
With all due recognition, of course.
Apple is doomed!™
I checked - I don't think you have actually trade marked that statement.
Oh - but wait - I see what you've done there.
I remember the leaked WinMo 7 (hehe 'WinMo') idea of a motion-aware phone,
using, of all things, the phone's camera
I can (can't?) imagine the battery life of a WinMo 7 (there's that name again) motion-aware phone.
BTW this was back in November 2008, we're still waiting MS
"Microsoft Research has a technology concept that uses the device's camera as a motion sensor,
enabling motion control while using the device. WHAT? the camera?
This means devices will not need accelerometers and other complicated gyroscopes to get these features,
and that existing Windows Mobile devices could be upgraded to full Windows Mobile 7 functionality." - yeah right - how's that working out for ya MS?
a link to 'Apple iPhone Doomed To Failure'
http://www.networkworld.com/communit...?nwwpkg=iphone