Yes you have, just like you always have. You claim that everyone is wrong yet you are the only one who doesn't seem to follow simple comments. Heaven forbid we actually use a compound-complex sentence.
Again, you are putting words into peoples mouths, I don't think everyone is wrong, just you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Sure, there are ... cut out the bollocks this "person" wrote ...
There is the original line I was referring to, "Apple doesn't really care about market share per se", I don't see the words "rarely" in there at all, now all I said is, if they don't care about, which is what you said, then why do they mention it?
Selective quoting. The rest of my post explained what that meant.
You're quoting posts out of order, and selectively ignoring responses, which is what you do here.
Anyway, below was my response to your first post, and it clearly says "rarely" and "directly."
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005
Does saying that you want to get just 1% of the market really show that you're interested in market share? In any case, the key metric was 10m units, which Apple called 1% (10m was actually less than 1%, even when he said it.)
He rarely mentions "share" directly when talking iPhone or iPod touch. Rather he says things like how many iPhone units were sold, how Apple is the number 1 mobile company by revenue, how Apple sold more than RIM, etc.
Then why didn't you write "look at the post above it" instead of "As I have said posted"?
And again, since you completely missed it, "As I have said posted" is not proper English, and means nothing.
It was a simple grammatical error, if you had choosen you could have understood what I meant, after all, I am told I should understand what you are thinking, not what you wrote.
You're quoting posts out of order, and selectively ignoring responses, which is what you do here.
And by the way you replied to my message it appears you like to pratice this as well...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005
Anyway, below was my response to your first post, and it clearly says "rarely" and "directly."
Yes I read it, you included a number of details that should have been in your original post.
But you raise another point by including your reply...
Quote:
He rarely mentions "share" directly when talking iPhone or iPod touch. Rather he says things like how many iPhone units were sold, how Apple is the number 1 mobile company by revenue, how Apple sold more than RIM, etc.
The number one mobile company statement was proved incorrect as well, Apple was lieing with statistics.
It was responded to but you choose to ignore the response and pick at tangential stuff.
Which is what you do and everyone here knows that.
No, you made the statement originally, then with my question you said I pulled the one line out and excluded the overall message, that is why I asked you, was that statement really relevant, if not, why did you make it?
You question my motives, yet I really have to question yours, it is a simple question, was the statement you made was not relevant to the overall message, then why did you make it?
Apple should find itself in 4th place this year. They would have beaten RIM already, except for the 2-for-1 promo by Verizon - but it is just a question of time before Apple go ahead of RIM and Sony-Ericcson.
Amazing, when you consider that Apple did not sell a single phone just 3 years back!
Remarkable results indeed. But somehow I doubt that the Verizon BOGO sale had that much of an impact on RIM's number. We are talking about one of the brands offered for sale on one carrier in one country. The US maybe big, but last I checked, the US market does not equate to the global market.
Nobody said 3% market share is a monopoly. But doesn't Apple have like 25% or higher market share for smartphones?
And aside from that (I could be wrong) but I always understood that a company does not need to have a monopoly to face anti-trust penalties.
No, Apple doesn't have a 25% share of smart phones. More like 16% worldwide. Not that it matters - even 25% isn't anywhere near where they'd need to be to control the market.
You can face antitrust penalties for ANY size - but you have to do something wrong. For example, if you collude to set prices, you can be penalized even if you're a small player, but that clearly hasn't happened here. So far, no one has given any rational explanation of what Apple has done that would get them into trouble with the DOJ.
I have no time to respond to each, so let me just respond in general, and mostly with questions.
First: I have no interest with a Verizon iPhone, even if Apple manufactures one for them. I did not have a very good experience with their customer service.
Now, as to the growth rate data provided here for the iPhone, the data reflected a tremendous expansion worldwide, the past two years. Has someone standardized the growth rate, once the tremendous increase in the potential customer base worldwide is factored in the equation?
In regard data pertinent to the US only, I have not seen any long term comparative study of the customer base of Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile -- before and after the iPhone was introduced. Sprint has been losing customers, like crazy, even before teh iPhone was even introduced. Where was the additional AT&T customer base coming from to account for this growth? Were they all largely from Verizon or from the bleedsing customer base of Sprint? or T-Mobile?
For the AT&T data itself, if the iPhone data shows a linear growth rate already, rather than a accelerating growth rate, then we expect the next stage to be the deceleration phase. Or, does anyone really think that the iPhone growth rate in the US will remain linear "forever", if Apple sticks exclusively with AT&T?
How long has RIM been selling through AT&T? Among these AT&T RIM customers, what is the existing customer base? Was there a dramatic and continuing rate of decline of AT&T RIM customer base since the iPhone was introduced? When did AT&T begin selling Android phones and growth rate within the carrier?
If the iPhone exclusive to AT&T is not significantly cannibalizing the AT&T RIM user base, nor impeding the growth rate of Android phones sold through AT&T, these data might or would be indicative of brand loyalty or perhaps provide insight of the userbase of those who do not like anything Apple. It could be predictive also of the scenario that may play out within Verizon when (not if) Apple decides eventually to manufacture a Verizon iPhone. It is also possible that former Verizon customers who became AT&T customers because of the iPhone might migrate back to Verizon. However, even with a Verizon iPhone, we cannot underestimate the animosity and number of anti-Apple haters. For this group, there are more viable choices now, instead of just the limited choices of Wintel vs Apple computers during the height of the PC era.
In regard timing, is it really in the best interest of Apple or its current and potential customers to simply wait until the LTE platform becomes more in widespread use in the US?
Based from circulating information -- some unsubstantiated rumors that Apple has not categorically denied -- Apple may indeed be exploring (if not already preparing) to manufacture non-GSM iPhones. More than likely, the foray into non-GSM iPhones may begin abroad, especially China, since this is not covered by any contract between Apple and AT&T. More than likely, non-GSM iPhones will become available in the US, once Apple's contract with AT&T expires, or if Apple could find a loophole in the contract.
There is no technical constraint that will impede Apple to create non-GSM phones. Other phone manufacturers have shown that this is technically and profitable.
My own bias is that it would be a great mistake for Apple to cede the customer base of other US carriers or even abroad -- unless any of us believe that there will always be massive and increasing rate of migration of customers from Verizon to AT&T.
It may become a different ballgame altogether if Apple continues to innovate, provides a more satisfying integrated ecosystem and maintains an Apps Store that is significantly much better than those of the other phones. In this regard, I welcome the competition from the likes of RIM, Google, and other phone manufacturers to motivate and keep Apple on its toes.
The only caveat to these speculations is that we won't have definitive answers until after a few years. The other harsh reality is that no corporation has remained dominant forever, in any industry. Many, in fact, completely vanished.
I'm apparently not smart enough to figure out how a 3% market share is a monopoly, but it makes sense to Droidtards.
Don't be so hard on yourself. Likely your problem is not stupidity. Instead, it seems to be ignorance.
The relevant market is NOT cellphones in general. Apple obviously has no monopoly in the cellphone market. Apple cannot exert monopoly power in the cellphone market.
Nobody, not even your 'tards, claim that 3% market share in cellphones is a monopoly.
So far, no one has given any rational explanation of what Apple has done that would get them into trouble with the DOJ.
From what I have been able to gather, I think that Apple's recent dev agreement changes are under scrutiny.
The changes make it clear that if a dev wants in on a vendor with monopoly power in the app business (Apple), it must write its app in such a manner that it is unsuitable for any other vendor's store.
IOW, they are trying to use their power in selling apps to hurt other app vendors, and in turn, other hardware manufacturers.
So the allegation seems to be that they are using their monopoly power in one market (mobile apps) to disadvantage competitors in another market (mobile phones).
I have no idea of whether this analysis is valid. It is my best guess.
First: I have no interest with a Verizon iPhone, even if Apple manufactures one for them. I did not have a very good experience with their customer service.
Same here. But I know several people who just won't leave Verizon but who eagerly want an iPhone.
Quote:
Now, as to the growth rate data provided here for the iPhone, the data reflected a tremendous expansion worldwide, the past two years. Has someone standardized the growth rate, once the tremendous increase in the potential customer base worldwide is factored in the equation?
Such a number looks like it could be useful, but there are so many variables in discussing the potential customer base worldwide. For example, Apple just sold about 1.2-1.5m iPhones into China Unicom's 160m+ subscriber base in its first 2 quarters, which is about half as successful as Apple selling 1.3m iPhones to AT&T's 80m subscriber base in its first 2quarters in 2007. But what portion of that subscriber base is looking to buy any smartphone?
Quote:
In regard data pertinent to the US only, I have not seen any long term comparative study of the customer base of Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile -- before and after the iPhone was introduced. Sprint has been losing customers, like crazy, even before teh iPhone was even introduced. Where was the additional AT&T customer base coming from to account for this growth? Were they all largely from Verizon or from the bleedsing customer base of Sprint? or T-Mobile?
AT&T and Verizon have each added about 12-13m net postpaid subscribers since 1Q07 (not including purchases like Alltel). Sprint has lost 8m postpaid subscribers, which I think is a faster rate than before iPhone was introduced, though I think Sprint's 2008 customer service fiasco is mostly to blame. Verizon has 82m postpaid subscribers, AT&T 65m, and Sprint 33m. (I have spotty T-Mobile numbers.)
AT&T and Verizon postpaid churn is about 1.1. Sprint and T-Mobile over 2. AT&T's is lower by about 15-20% since iPhone, Verizon's higher by about 20%, Sprint and T-Mobile lower by about 5-10%. So people are continuing to switch. But the penetration rate for cellphones has gone (or is about to go) over 100% in the US - meaning that many people have more than one subscription, and likely more than one phone.
Quote:
For the AT&T data itself, if the iPhone data shows a linear growth rate already, rather than a accelerating growth rate, then we expect the next stage to be the deceleration phase. Or, does anyone really think that the iPhone growth rate in the US will remain linear "forever", if Apple sticks exclusively with AT&T?
Approximately 3.5m iPhone activations in year 1, 8.3m in year 2, 9m so far in 9 mos of year 3 (maybe another 2-3m in this quarter depending on the launch date for iPhone 4th Gen). Since some are upgrades of previous iPhones, I estimate about 15-17m AT&T subcribers are using iPhone; around 20-25% of AT&T postpaid subscribers. I think it's slowing, but cellphones are replaced every 18-24 mos. So AT&T may look saturated, but the 8m from year 2 are primed for upgrades. And of course, many who have not yet bought smartphones are also beginning to do so. Canalys estimates 65m will buy smartphones in North America in 2010 (47m bought smartphones in 2009).
I'll have to address the rest of your post later. Gotta go.
Comments
"As I have said posted" is nonsense talk. What does it mean?
It means look at the post above it.
(This is what you do. Take one little piece of a post and pick at it, all the while ignoring the main point.)
So are you saying that little point you made is not relevant and should just be ignored? If so, why did you make it?
Yes you have, just like you always have. You claim that everyone is wrong yet you are the only one who doesn't seem to follow simple comments. Heaven forbid we actually use a compound-complex sentence.
Again, you are putting words into peoples mouths, I don't think everyone is wrong, just you.
Sure, there are ... cut out the bollocks this "person" wrote ...
grow up.
It means look at the post above it.
Then why didn't you write "look at the post above it" instead of "As I have said posted"?
And again, since you completely missed it, "As I have said posted" is not proper English, and means nothing.
There is the original line I was referring to, "Apple doesn't really care about market share per se", I don't see the words "rarely" in there at all, now all I said is, if they don't care about, which is what you said, then why do they mention it?
Selective quoting. The rest of my post explained what that meant.
Simple question to your statement
You're quoting posts out of order, and selectively ignoring responses, which is what you do here.
Anyway, below was my response to your first post, and it clearly says "rarely" and "directly."
Does saying that you want to get just 1% of the market really show that you're interested in market share? In any case, the key metric was 10m units, which Apple called 1% (10m was actually less than 1%, even when he said it.)
He rarely mentions "share" directly when talking iPhone or iPod touch. Rather he says things like how many iPhone units were sold, how Apple is the number 1 mobile company by revenue, how Apple sold more than RIM, etc.
So are you saying that little point you made is not relevant and should just be ignored? If so, why did you make it?
It was responded to but you choose to ignore the response and pick at tangential stuff.
Which is what you do and everyone here knows that.
Then why didn't you write "look at the post above it" instead of "As I have said posted"?
And again, since you completely missed it, "As I have said posted" is not proper English, and means nothing.
It was a simple grammatical error, if you had choosen you could have understood what I meant, after all, I am told I should understand what you are thinking, not what you wrote.
You're quoting posts out of order, and selectively ignoring responses, which is what you do here.
And by the way you replied to my message it appears you like to pratice this as well...
Anyway, below was my response to your first post, and it clearly says "rarely" and "directly."
Yes I read it, you included a number of details that should have been in your original post.
But you raise another point by including your reply...
He rarely mentions "share" directly when talking iPhone or iPod touch. Rather he says things like how many iPhone units were sold, how Apple is the number 1 mobile company by revenue, how Apple sold more than RIM, etc.
The number one mobile company statement was proved incorrect as well, Apple was lieing with statistics.
It was responded to but you choose to ignore the response and pick at tangential stuff.
Which is what you do and everyone here knows that.
No, you made the statement originally, then with my question you said I pulled the one line out and excluded the overall message, that is why I asked you, was that statement really relevant, if not, why did you make it?
You question my motives, yet I really have to question yours, it is a simple question, was the statement you made was not relevant to the overall message, then why did you make it?
Just to be picky, the Nokia number in the paragraph 4 should be 107,800,000.
If you read the chart carefully, you'll note that these units are based in thousands of units.
107,800 x 1,000 = your number.
Apple should find itself in 4th place this year. They would have beaten RIM already, except for the 2-for-1 promo by Verizon - but it is just a question of time before Apple go ahead of RIM and Sony-Ericcson.
Amazing, when you consider that Apple did not sell a single phone just 3 years back!
Remarkable results indeed. But somehow I doubt that the Verizon BOGO sale had that much of an impact on RIM's number. We are talking about one of the brands offered for sale on one carrier in one country. The US maybe big, but last I checked, the US market does not equate to the global market.
I'm apparently not smart enough to figure out how a 3% market share is a monopoly, but it makes sense to Droidtards.
Nobody said 3% market share is a monopoly. But doesn't Apple have like 25% or higher market share for smartphones?
And aside from that (I could be wrong) but I always understood that a company does not need to have a monopoly to face anti-trust penalties.
Nobody said 3% market share is a monopoly. But doesn't Apple have like 25% or higher market share for smartphones?
And aside from that (I could be wrong) but I always understood that a company does not need to have a monopoly to face anti-trust penalties.
No, Apple doesn't have a 25% share of smart phones. More like 16% worldwide. Not that it matters - even 25% isn't anywhere near where they'd need to be to control the market.
You can face antitrust penalties for ANY size - but you have to do something wrong. For example, if you collude to set prices, you can be penalized even if you're a small player, but that clearly hasn't happened here. So far, no one has given any rational explanation of what Apple has done that would get them into trouble with the DOJ.
First: I have no interest with a Verizon iPhone, even if Apple manufactures one for them. I did not have a very good experience with their customer service.
Now, as to the growth rate data provided here for the iPhone, the data reflected a tremendous expansion worldwide, the past two years. Has someone standardized the growth rate, once the tremendous increase in the potential customer base worldwide is factored in the equation?
In regard data pertinent to the US only, I have not seen any long term comparative study of the customer base of Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile -- before and after the iPhone was introduced. Sprint has been losing customers, like crazy, even before teh iPhone was even introduced. Where was the additional AT&T customer base coming from to account for this growth? Were they all largely from Verizon or from the bleedsing customer base of Sprint? or T-Mobile?
For the AT&T data itself, if the iPhone data shows a linear growth rate already, rather than a accelerating growth rate, then we expect the next stage to be the deceleration phase. Or, does anyone really think that the iPhone growth rate in the US will remain linear "forever", if Apple sticks exclusively with AT&T?
How long has RIM been selling through AT&T? Among these AT&T RIM customers, what is the existing customer base? Was there a dramatic and continuing rate of decline of AT&T RIM customer base since the iPhone was introduced? When did AT&T begin selling Android phones and growth rate within the carrier?
If the iPhone exclusive to AT&T is not significantly cannibalizing the AT&T RIM user base, nor impeding the growth rate of Android phones sold through AT&T, these data might or would be indicative of brand loyalty or perhaps provide insight of the userbase of those who do not like anything Apple. It could be predictive also of the scenario that may play out within Verizon when (not if) Apple decides eventually to manufacture a Verizon iPhone. It is also possible that former Verizon customers who became AT&T customers because of the iPhone might migrate back to Verizon. However, even with a Verizon iPhone, we cannot underestimate the animosity and number of anti-Apple haters. For this group, there are more viable choices now, instead of just the limited choices of Wintel vs Apple computers during the height of the PC era.
In regard timing, is it really in the best interest of Apple or its current and potential customers to simply wait until the LTE platform becomes more in widespread use in the US?
Based from circulating information -- some unsubstantiated rumors that Apple has not categorically denied -- Apple may indeed be exploring (if not already preparing) to manufacture non-GSM iPhones. More than likely, the foray into non-GSM iPhones may begin abroad, especially China, since this is not covered by any contract between Apple and AT&T. More than likely, non-GSM iPhones will become available in the US, once Apple's contract with AT&T expires, or if Apple could find a loophole in the contract.
There is no technical constraint that will impede Apple to create non-GSM phones. Other phone manufacturers have shown that this is technically and profitable.
My own bias is that it would be a great mistake for Apple to cede the customer base of other US carriers or even abroad -- unless any of us believe that there will always be massive and increasing rate of migration of customers from Verizon to AT&T.
It may become a different ballgame altogether if Apple continues to innovate, provides a more satisfying integrated ecosystem and maintains an Apps Store that is significantly much better than those of the other phones. In this regard, I welcome the competition from the likes of RIM, Google, and other phone manufacturers to motivate and keep Apple on its toes.
The only caveat to these speculations is that we won't have definitive answers until after a few years. The other harsh reality is that no corporation has remained dominant forever, in any industry. Many, in fact, completely vanished.
CGC
He said he wanted 1% of the mobile phone market share. Exactly how is 1% being overly concerned about market share?
He never said Apple was "overly concerned" He said "If Apple doesn't care about market share..."
Argue against his position, not made-up words that you put into his mouth.
I'm apparently not smart enough to figure out how a 3% market share is a monopoly, but it makes sense to Droidtards.
Don't be so hard on yourself. Likely your problem is not stupidity. Instead, it seems to be ignorance.
The relevant market is NOT cellphones in general. Apple obviously has no monopoly in the cellphone market. Apple cannot exert monopoly power in the cellphone market.
Nobody, not even your 'tards, claim that 3% market share in cellphones is a monopoly.
Nobody said 3% market share is a monopoly. But doesn't Apple have like 25% or higher market share for smartphones?
And aside from that (I could be wrong) but I always understood that a company does not need to have a monopoly to face anti-trust penalties.
You are on the right track. You are trying to define the relevant market.
From everything I have seen, the relevant market is mobile phone apps. Apple sells more than everybody else combined.
So far, no one has given any rational explanation of what Apple has done that would get them into trouble with the DOJ.
From what I have been able to gather, I think that Apple's recent dev agreement changes are under scrutiny.
The changes make it clear that if a dev wants in on a vendor with monopoly power in the app business (Apple), it must write its app in such a manner that it is unsuitable for any other vendor's store.
IOW, they are trying to use their power in selling apps to hurt other app vendors, and in turn, other hardware manufacturers.
So the allegation seems to be that they are using their monopoly power in one market (mobile apps) to disadvantage competitors in another market (mobile phones).
I have no idea of whether this analysis is valid. It is my best guess.
First: I have no interest with a Verizon iPhone, even if Apple manufactures one for them. I did not have a very good experience with their customer service.
Same here. But I know several people who just won't leave Verizon but who eagerly want an iPhone.
Now, as to the growth rate data provided here for the iPhone, the data reflected a tremendous expansion worldwide, the past two years. Has someone standardized the growth rate, once the tremendous increase in the potential customer base worldwide is factored in the equation?
Such a number looks like it could be useful, but there are so many variables in discussing the potential customer base worldwide. For example, Apple just sold about 1.2-1.5m iPhones into China Unicom's 160m+ subscriber base in its first 2 quarters, which is about half as successful as Apple selling 1.3m iPhones to AT&T's 80m subscriber base in its first 2quarters in 2007. But what portion of that subscriber base is looking to buy any smartphone?
In regard data pertinent to the US only, I have not seen any long term comparative study of the customer base of Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile -- before and after the iPhone was introduced. Sprint has been losing customers, like crazy, even before teh iPhone was even introduced. Where was the additional AT&T customer base coming from to account for this growth? Were they all largely from Verizon or from the bleedsing customer base of Sprint? or T-Mobile?
AT&T and Verizon have each added about 12-13m net postpaid subscribers since 1Q07 (not including purchases like Alltel). Sprint has lost 8m postpaid subscribers, which I think is a faster rate than before iPhone was introduced, though I think Sprint's 2008 customer service fiasco is mostly to blame. Verizon has 82m postpaid subscribers, AT&T 65m, and Sprint 33m. (I have spotty T-Mobile numbers.)
AT&T and Verizon postpaid churn is about 1.1. Sprint and T-Mobile over 2. AT&T's is lower by about 15-20% since iPhone, Verizon's higher by about 20%, Sprint and T-Mobile lower by about 5-10%. So people are continuing to switch. But the penetration rate for cellphones has gone (or is about to go) over 100% in the US - meaning that many people have more than one subscription, and likely more than one phone.
For the AT&T data itself, if the iPhone data shows a linear growth rate already, rather than a accelerating growth rate, then we expect the next stage to be the deceleration phase. Or, does anyone really think that the iPhone growth rate in the US will remain linear "forever", if Apple sticks exclusively with AT&T?
Approximately 3.5m iPhone activations in year 1, 8.3m in year 2, 9m so far in 9 mos of year 3 (maybe another 2-3m in this quarter depending on the launch date for iPhone 4th Gen). Since some are upgrades of previous iPhones, I estimate about 15-17m AT&T subcribers are using iPhone; around 20-25% of AT&T postpaid subscribers. I think it's slowing, but cellphones are replaced every 18-24 mos. So AT&T may look saturated, but the 8m from year 2 are primed for upgrades. And of course, many who have not yet bought smartphones are also beginning to do so. Canalys estimates 65m will buy smartphones in North America in 2010 (47m bought smartphones in 2009).
I'll have to address the rest of your post later. Gotta go.