Apple's share of U.S. smartphone market grows to 25% - study

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 100
    mark2005mark2005 Posts: 1,158member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    That's equivalent to what Verizon charges, its not a problem.



    I wasn't comparing to Verizon smartphone.



    The question I was addressing was how much a person would be willing to pay extra for a smartphone, in this case, iPhone, rather than just buying a featurephone.



    My teen daughter would love an iPhone, but she also wants texting. No way am I going to pay $50 a month for her to do that. So just featurephone with limited texting for her. Yeah, she's a teen, but I've run into many people who absolutely want unlimited texting, and they might consider a smartphone for an extra $30 with it, but not $50 extra.
  • Reply 62 of 100
    mark2005mark2005 Posts: 1,158member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MsNly View Post


    My family doesn't have the texting plan. It's an extra cost you don't need. I mean you can send most people an email these days or you can use an application like textPlus, textNow, ect.



    That's what I do with my iPhone, but I find that since something like textPlus requires the people you want to text with to take an additional step and save your "text number", it doesn't happen as much.
  • Reply 63 of 100
    ifailifail Posts: 463member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I the average iPhone subsidy is less by about $50-70, if I recall Apple's average take correctly.



    Do BBs require a contract on Verizon of you go with a BOGO deal and do you have to get both activated at time of purchase?



    Both have to be activated at the same time, and require a 2 year contract. VZW will pull 960.00 of revenue for both phones solely from the data plan alone for 2 years, not including Voice/Data. They get their money back over time.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post


    Do you have any sources that reveal that RIM does NOT absorb some portion of the revenue reduction?



    No, its logical they probably sell to a lesser price to VZW since they sell so many, but RIM is NOT GIVING THEM AWAY. At best, VZW gets a 10% lesser price than any carrier since they sell so many.
  • Reply 64 of 100
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


    Hmm...seems most of what people do with a iPhone (outside of making calls) is better done with a real computer with a real keyboard.



    So the iPhone really a matter of convenience with it's smaller size, that's all.





    I don't regret my decision to stick with a MBP and a cheap disposable phone with low monthly rates.



    The money I saved the last two years not purchasing a iPhone is going to buy me one of those new i7 MacBook Pro's coming today.



    opps did I tell a secret?



    No, not really. You only revealed what works for you. For those of us who purchased the iPhone, it does what we need it to without having to haul around our MBP's everywhere. I'm a perfectly satisfied customer with the iPhone (and an MBP, by the way). No problem here.
  • Reply 65 of 100
    mark2005mark2005 Posts: 1,158member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ifail View Post


    Missing my point here



    (phone sold to AT&T) 600-200.00 (price of phone) = 400 to make up over contract

    (phone sold to VZW) 350/400-0.00 (price of phone) = 350/400 to make up over contract



    Im not sure how much clearer i can get, there is no damn difference.



    EDIT: There are carriers that give it away for free as well



    I don't have any solid evidence that the BOGO handset makers eat a part of the "free", but note that RIM's average selling price has declined from $370 (qtr ending 2/28/09) to $317 (qtr ending 11/28/09) over this past year.



    I grant that one needs to account for some seasonality, as the 370 was a high point following the launch of some BB phones.
  • Reply 66 of 100
    mark2005mark2005 Posts: 1,158member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ifail View Post


    No, its logical they probably sell to a lesser price to VZW since they sell so many, but RIM is NOT GIVING THEM AWAY. At best, VZW gets a 10% lesser price than any carrier since they sell so many.



    For simplicity, assume that VZW decides on its own to sell BOGO free, and pays RIM the full contracted price for a set number of phones. The next time VZW goes to contract with RIM for this model, you can bet VZW is not going to be willing to pay as much for it as they did the last time.



    To be more complex, the VZW-RIM contract could have options, i.e., if VZW sells X number by X date, VZW will buy Y more at a price P, but if it doesn't, the option doesn't get exercised at all.



    There are all sorts of variations on options that might've been used, but the bottom line is if the phone doesn't sell well, the handset maker will eventually get lesser revenue.
  • Reply 67 of 100
    ifailifail Posts: 463member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post


    I don't have any solid evidence that the BOGO handset makers eat a part of the "free", but note that RIM's average selling price has declined from $370 (qtr ending 2/28/09) to $317 (qtr ending 11/28/09) over this past year.



    I grant that one needs to account for some seasonality, as the 370 was a high point following the launch of some BB phones.



    Cheap devices like the 8520/30 drive down sale prices, since it costs RIM only 110-120 (these devices reuse old cameras/keyboards but run new processors and and more memory).



    New BlackBerrys should drive the price up, but only 20-30 dollars. RIM wants to capture every part of the smartphone market, from bargain bin to top of the line
  • Reply 68 of 100
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    My point stands regardless of what Balmer was referring to, the fact that he seemed to be talking about smartphones is just icing on the cake.



    In any case, the statement he made, at the time he made it, makes absolutely no sense unless he *was* talking about smartphone share as opposed to total market share, so I gave the tired old salesman the benefit of the doubt and ascribed his comments to talk of smartphone share only.



    I guess I should have been meaner and said that the OP's argument was wrong all by itself, and

    BTW Balmer is an idiot? But I don't actually think he's an idiot.



    Balmer is a lot of things, (most of them nasty), but he isn't an idiot.



    I think it's fairly certain that his comment was with regard to ALL mobile phones, not just smartphones, hence the 1.3billion figure, which is far far higher than the amount of smartphones sold. And within that, I guess his comments referred to Apple only ever achieving 2-3% of that market, which might be about where they are now. If the trend continues, and they stay at 2-3% marketshare, then Balmer was dead right. I am yet to fathom at what point it was ever indicated that he was talking about smartphone marketshare specifically as the numbers he quotes just don't relate to smartphones at all.
  • Reply 69 of 100
    ifailifail Posts: 463member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post


    For simplicity, assume that VZW decides on its own to sell BOGO free, and pays RIM the full contracted price for a set number of phones. The next time VZW goes to contract with RIM for this model, you can bet VZW is not going to be willing to pay as much for it as they did the last time.



    To be more complex, the VZW-RIM contract could have options, i.e., if VZW sells X number by X date, VZW will buy Y more at a price P, but if it doesn't, the option doesn't get exercised at all.



    There are all sorts of variations on options that might've been used, but the bottom line is if the phone doesn't sell well, the handset maker will eventually get lesser revenue.



    I agree, but a 10% decrease is roughly 20-30 dollars saved per device, and that easily equates to millions saved selling only 100k devices, VZW is estimated to sell roughly 20% of RIMs devices a quarter, that becomes a huges savings to VZW.



    RIM is willing to eat that lesser selling cost cause they will get it right back through BIS/BES subscriptions
  • Reply 70 of 100
    tekstudtekstud Posts: 351member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


    Yes, talks much but says little.



    No- more like says little and gets his point across unlike the ramblers on here.
  • Reply 71 of 100
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ifail View Post


    RIM is willing to eat that lesser selling cost cause they will get it right back through BIS/BES subscriptions



    So far it's been working out great for them, but I don't think it's a sustainable model. BES isn't the godsend it once was for the enterprise and a lot of money can be saved by going directly from Exchange to a device with ActiveSync.



    I'm just glad I gauged correctly when to jump out of RIMM. if I see something dynamic coming from them with the Storm 3 I'll likely buy back in for a spell.
  • Reply 72 of 100
    tofinotofino Posts: 697member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrochester View Post


    I think you need to read it again. I can't see anywhere that Balmer said he was talking about smartphones only. In fact, the 1.3billion figure indicates he is talking about ALL mobile phones, and in that respect he is dead right about the 2-3% marketshare.



    isn't a phone that runs minmo also by definition not a 'dumb' phone?
  • Reply 73 of 100
    ifailifail Posts: 463member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    So far it's been working out great for them, but I don't think it's a sustainable model. BES isn't the godsend it once was for the enterprise and a lot of money can be saved by going directly from Exchange to a device with ActiveSync.



    I'm just glad I gauged correctly when to jump out of RIMM. if I see something dynamic coming from them with the Storm 3 I'll likely buy back in for a spell.



    Its not the godsend it once was but it still bests any enterprise offering by far when you go beyond Exchange.



    Right now BIS/BES is still great because its not heavy on the network (stress is offloaded onto RIMs servers, emails/data/messaging) but when LTE/bandwith increase in the next coming years it will be interesting what RIM does with it.



    The data compression BB have is nice, if you can get iPhone quality content (web/media/streaming) without eating monstrous amounts of data like the iPhone does, i dont think RIM will have much to worry about.
  • Reply 74 of 100
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,658member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ifail View Post


    There is no way to disable surepress currently. There is quite an uproar about it, and apparently there is about a 30% chance the new Storm 3 wont be sporting it. I personally typed pretty quickly on mine, but i never tried to push beyond say 40ish WPM cause the 9530 was very fickle and would break easily.



    Surepress can't be disabled because it's a physical mechanism. In the original phone, there is one switch that sits in the center of the screen. When you press the screen, the entire screen moves downward, and closes the switch. The problem, other than the force needed to activate it, was that as you moved away from the center, it became less sensitive as the screen tilted, and more force was needed, and more errors occurred.



    The Storm2 changed that. Now there are switches at the corners so that the sensitivity is equalized around the screen, and the force was reduced, resulting in less effort, so that it's not as tiring.



    But, tapping the screen for other purposes can still activate a switch which causes problems.



    I don't remember what changes, if any, are in store for the Storm3.
  • Reply 75 of 100
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,658member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tofino View Post


    isn't a phone that runs minmo also by definition not a 'dumb' phone?



    Meamo is a smartphone. But many Symbian phones are not. The S40 isn't considered to be a smartphone OS, but a feature phone OS. So counting smartphone sales depends on how one is counting the phones.
  • Reply 76 of 100
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Meamo is a smartphone. But many Symbian phones are not. The S40 isn't considered to be a smartphone OS, but a feature phone OS. So counting smartphone sales depends on how one is counting the phones.



    But S40 isn't Symbian, so why would you count them in smartphone sales? All Symbian phones are smartphones by their very definition.



    Quote:

    isn't a phone that runs minmo also by definition not a 'dumb' phone?



    Yes but he's imagining having Windows Mobile on 60-70% of ALL mobile phones, not just smartphones. Hence the 1.3billion figure.
  • Reply 77 of 100
    ifailifail Posts: 463member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I don't remember what changes, if any, are in store for the Storm3.



    http://www.mydroidworld.com/forums/b...storm-3-a.html

    This guy is spot on and in the know, was a big leaker of OSs for the 9530



    Quote:

    The rumors have been churning and low and behold the Storm 3 is a real device. I only had about 5 minutes with the device and I could not take pictures or notes. There is also some information I cannot state as to protect the innocent.



    The first thing I noticed about the Storm 3 is how much thinner it is then the 9550. Think iPhone thin. It also felt considerably lighter but I did not have enough time to break out my triple beam. There were reports from bbleaks that the boot up time was much faster and indeed it is. I counted to myself and it was 20 seconds from the time I pressed the on button to being fully powered up. Let me discuss the screen for a moment. It is the best screen I have ever seen. The color and resolution is fantastic. Compared to the Moto Droid sitting next to it, blew it out of the water. The UI is different. I cannot get into specifics, but Storm 3 does widgets



    Something else I noticed was the speed of processor. I don't know what is under the hood but it was smoking fast even with the beta OS being used. It beat the Droid on every task I threw at it. Hands down the fastest phone I have used.



    Now here is where it got cool. Adobe flash was incorporated into the browser and I have to say I was super impressed. Compared to mobile safari, this is better. Full desktop quality rendering of pages. While it looked better pages rendered slightly faster on the iPhone 3GS but faster than the Moto Droid. Another nice addition is tabbed browsing. It is implemented very cleanly into the browser UI.



    The camera has been upgraded and is rocking a 6MP beauty. Photos I took on it were fantastic. Available RAM has been increased to 512mb, a nice bump for sure. I wasn't able to see what the SD card was so I have no idea there.



    IMO this phone outperforms the Droid in all areas except for available apps (BB APP World is still very small). There were no games installed so I couldn't determine how well this phone performed from a gaming standpoint. Maybe on Round 2 I will be more lucky.



    Just when I was about ready to give up on RIM, I am pleased to see the huge strides they have made not only from a hardware but also software perspective.



    P.S. Rumors of this having a slider are completely false. There are and were never any plans on combining this phone with a slide-out Qwerty.



  • Reply 78 of 100
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,658member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrochester View Post


    But S40 isn't Symbian, so why would you count them in smartphone sales? All Symbian phones are smartphones by their very definition.



    The Symbian S40 OS. Would you rather I called it the Series 40 Symbian OS? It's not considered to be a smartphone OS.
  • Reply 79 of 100
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    The Symbian S40 OS. Would you rather I called it the Series 40 Symbian OS? It's not considered to be a smartphone OS.



    It's not Symbian though so cut out the name Symbian from the name and you've got it right. Nokia's S60 devices are Symbian, S40 devices are not Symbian, they are a proprietary in-house OS.
  • Reply 80 of 100
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RichL View Post


    He's clearly talking about cell phones and not just smartphones.



    Microsoft wasn't building a 'dumb' phone operating system in 2007 and 3 years later in 2010, they're still not. And neither does Apple.



    IPhone now sells more than all Windows "Smart" phones, therefore Apple is also selling more than all Windows "anything" phones.



    Balmer was blowing wind then... and eating crow now. If it makes you feel better reinterpreting his comments then... knock yourself out.
Sign In or Register to comment.