The confusion, that AI seems to have exacerbated, is that when Gartner is talking about 'Mobile Devices" they are just talking about 'Smartphones'. They appear to have dropped the smartphone moniker a few quarters ago.
Before all the resident trolls start chipping in... it's quite clear from the figures quoted that Gartner is talking about iPhones only. (25 M sold last year, 41 M for this year)
I think you are right.
Interestingly, what seems to matter to Apple -- as perhaps it does for its shareholders too -- is the aggregate iOS numbers.
These numbers are literally just guesses. Not defending Apple or Google. Just saying its based on repeated previous growths year over year.. with no account for any future achievments or blunders on either companies part.
Guessing a year from now I can understand.. guessing four years from now in an industry like this?? Get Real.
Developers, mind share, momentum moving to Android should be a concern to Apple.
1) Apple has no dearth of developers. In fact, it probably has too many, so some winnowing might actually help improve quality and clutter.
2) Mindshare? Apple? There isn't a company anywhere in the world that comes close. Nowhere near close.
3) I don't know what 'momentum' means or why it matters (except for the two points above).
At the end of the day, it is all about the value you create: value to customers and value to shareholders. Unless you do the former well, you can't do well by the latter. On both these fronts, again, I can't think of a company that matches Apple.
The confusion, that AI seems to have exacerbated, is that when Gartner is talking about 'Mobile Devices" they are just talking about 'Smartphones'. They appear to have dropped the smartphone moniker a few quarters ago.
Before all the resident trolls start chipping in... it's quite clear from the figures quoted that Gartner is talking about iPhones only. (25 M sold last year, 41 M for this year)
This "analysis" is already worthless because it doesn't account for Windows Phone 7 at all. Windows Phone 7 is the first viable direct competition Android is getting. RIM, Apple, and Nokia are all competing with the "HW/SW single vendor" model. Windows Mobile 6 does use the Android model (SW vendor different from HW vendor) but it was never a touch OS, unlike WP7.
I am confident you will see at least some deflection on the part of the HW makers from Android to WP7.
Agreed. Any analysis that doesn't factor in Windows Phone 7 is either predicting it's demise (Kin showed the way), or are ignoring the 800lbs gorilla in the market. In any case, hardware makers will respond to whichever OS sells their hardware. I think it's interesting that Microsoft is taking a play that's half way between Apple and Google's approaches: WP7 requires tight adherence to Microsoft's hardware reference platform, and they're controlling the brand and user experience as tightly as Apple does, but they're openly licensing the OS to any handset makers, like Google does. I think this may be the best of both worlds, if you're going to take a licensing approach. Now, if they could only fix the whole "Windows" part of their solution to not suck...
Why do so many insist on going back over 20 years to look or analogies and patterns? Under current management a more apt event to consider is Apple and the iPod from 10 years ago. I suspect the same pundits were staking their reputations on the insight that Apple's early lead in digital audio devices would inevitably be unable to compete with "open" architecture rivals. In short order Apple would be reduced to a niche player.
We know how that wisdom has played out in the real world. From the same period we were informed that Apple's venture into retail stores was folly and would end in disaster. It is all just too funny for words that this sort of analysis continues to be presented.
These types of estimates never reflect reality. In four years we may all be communicating with brain implants. Think about what right now would have looked like based estimates four years ago. I would bet that iOS wasn't in the chart.
Well, I for one care a bit more about Gartner's projections than your projections.
Got anything behind your analysis that beats the data Gartner relied upon?
What data? These are projections based on nothing. What do you think they did, poll the future?
Anyway, in 4 years we'll probably not be using phones anymore, once the carriers hold on the illusion of voice/data distiction falls through and we realize they should be going flat rate like the isps.
Don't forget new ATV, that's running iOS. Once iOS 4.2 comes out and AirPlay gets underway I can see this appealing to current ipod/ipad/iphone owners.
So there's still plenty of growth for Apple even if it goes multiple carriers in US.
Don't forget new ATV, that's running iOS. Once iOS 4.2 comes out and AirPlay gets underway I can see this appealing to current ipod/ipad/iphone owners.
So there's still plenty of growth for Apple even if it goes multiple carriers in US.
And when everyone thinks Apple is running out of gas, Steve pulls something new anyway. ONLY one thing can doom Apple. Complacence. Right now, they are far from it.
I'm sorry but as someone who knows about Gartner since the late 90's, I would say they they've never been right about anything they've projected. Very rarely do they get it right. When they started they had kids right out of school who don't know their elbows from a hole in the ground make up projections.
So, I would bet with almost 100% certainty come 2014, these numbers will be way off....
Apple's first priority is to deliver the best user experience possible. Apple's historically high margins have enabled them to invest vast amounts in R&D. We see the results in terms of a quality user experience.
People saw what Apple makes.
They USED what Apple makes.
Wondered WHY no other company seems capable of delivering a similar end-to-end quality experience.
They simply got tired of crappy hardware, crappy software, malware, etc., etc., etc..
What was the alternative to "the standard"? Apple. PERIOD.
The goal of any business is profit at the risk of a loss-- called the profit motive.
Everything else is secondary!
You can Yahoo or Bing the phrase for defiinitions-- here's one:
Quote:
In the free market economy, the profit motive is the ultimate purpose of a commercial enterprise, to earn a profit. The profit motive notion is closely related to the concept of self-interest. Adam Smith originally described the workings of the free market not in terms of profit motive, but as a by-product of individual self-interest. Under this philosophy, the profit motive is axiomatic, in that the only way a company can further the self-interests of its shareholders is to earn a profit. The profit motive is merely a proxy for providing income to shareholders. As an extremely focused definition of business purpose, the profit motive engenders considerable criticism of capitalism generally and multinational corporations in particular. These critics point out the profit motive apparently allows no room for the interests of the customer, the employee, or society and the environment, unless those interests happen to align with what the profit motive dictates. Perhaps the profit motive is a bit like democracy: the worst corporate objective, except for all the others that have been tried.
Comments
The confusion, that AI seems to have exacerbated, is that when Gartner is talking about 'Mobile Devices" they are just talking about 'Smartphones'. They appear to have dropped the smartphone moniker a few quarters ago.
Before all the resident trolls start chipping in... it's quite clear from the figures quoted that Gartner is talking about iPhones only. (25 M sold last year, 41 M for this year)
I think you are right.
Interestingly, what seems to matter to Apple -- as perhaps it does for its shareholders too -- is the aggregate iOS numbers.
Guessing a year from now I can understand.. guessing four years from now in an industry like this?? Get Real.
Why do they do that? Altruism?
Nope. They think that is the best means to their desired end: to maximize profits.
If having the best "product user experience" were an imperfect method of maximizing total profits, Apple would turn to a new strategy.
What's your point? It is their strategy, and it is working fabulously.. for them and their customers.
No matter how hard you try, you're not going to make 'Being profitable and satisfying their customers' sound like a bad thing.
Developers, mind share, momentum moving to Android should be a concern to Apple.
1) Apple has no dearth of developers. In fact, it probably has too many, so some winnowing might actually help improve quality and clutter.
2) Mindshare? Apple? There isn't a company anywhere in the world that comes close. Nowhere near close.
3) I don't know what 'momentum' means or why it matters (except for the two points above).
At the end of the day, it is all about the value you create: value to customers and value to shareholders. Unless you do the former well, you can't do well by the latter. On both these fronts, again, I can't think of a company that matches Apple.
That is not the point.
"They do it to make money." That is your quote, not mine. Confused much?
If you think they prioritize anything above maximizing profits, you have a very different understanding of Apple from its millions of owners.
They capitalize all this stuff. They don't do it to "deliver the best user experience possible". They do it to make money.
Stock buyers are rarely in the charity business or the social change business or the "improve the UI" business.
They are investing for profit. They own Apple.
If the BOD tried to implement some sort of social engineering program that wasn't intended to maximize profits, they would get the boot.
If the stock holders in Apple really wanted to maximise their profits they would demand a dividend. Otherwise their profit is worthless.
Jobs really runs Apple though he does not own it.
He wants to win this.
The confusion, that AI seems to have exacerbated, is that when Gartner is talking about 'Mobile Devices" they are just talking about 'Smartphones'. They appear to have dropped the smartphone moniker a few quarters ago.
Before all the resident trolls start chipping in... it's quite clear from the figures quoted that Gartner is talking about iPhones only. (25 M sold last year, 41 M for this year)
Thanks. I was wondering about that.
That makes their report worthless of course.
This "analysis" is already worthless because it doesn't account for Windows Phone 7 at all. Windows Phone 7 is the first viable direct competition Android is getting. RIM, Apple, and Nokia are all competing with the "HW/SW single vendor" model. Windows Mobile 6 does use the Android model (SW vendor different from HW vendor) but it was never a touch OS, unlike WP7.
I am confident you will see at least some deflection on the part of the HW makers from Android to WP7.
Agreed. Any analysis that doesn't factor in Windows Phone 7 is either predicting it's demise (Kin showed the way), or are ignoring the 800lbs gorilla in the market. In any case, hardware makers will respond to whichever OS sells their hardware. I think it's interesting that Microsoft is taking a play that's half way between Apple and Google's approaches: WP7 requires tight adherence to Microsoft's hardware reference platform, and they're controlling the brand and user experience as tightly as Apple does, but they're openly licensing the OS to any handset makers, like Google does. I think this may be the best of both worlds, if you're going to take a licensing approach. Now, if they could only fix the whole "Windows" part of their solution to not suck...
Android is to Windows, iOS is to Mac OSX.
Cheaper devices vs Premium devices
Quantity vs Quality
etc, etc.
Why do so many insist on going back over 20 years to look or analogies and patterns? Under current management a more apt event to consider is Apple and the iPod from 10 years ago. I suspect the same pundits were staking their reputations on the insight that Apple's early lead in digital audio devices would inevitably be unable to compete with "open" architecture rivals. In short order Apple would be reduced to a niche player.
We know how that wisdom has played out in the real world. From the same period we were informed that Apple's venture into retail stores was folly and would end in disaster. It is all just too funny for words that this sort of analysis continues to be presented.
If having the best "product user experience" were an imperfect method of maximizing total profits, Apple would turn to a new strategy.
You mean like everyone else?
Well, I for one care a bit more about Gartner's projections than your projections.
Got anything behind your analysis that beats the data Gartner relied upon?
What data? These are projections based on nothing. What do you think they did, poll the future?
Anyway, in 4 years we'll probably not be using phones anymore, once the carriers hold on the illusion of voice/data distiction falls through and we realize they should be going flat rate like the isps.
I totally understand. I also drew great offense from your name calling of me a fanboi.
I hope that you will understand that I must also report you.
Thanks so much.
I don't blame you. I would rather be called anything else than be called a fanboi.
So there's still plenty of growth for Apple even if it goes multiple carriers in US.
You called my response stupid. That's like calling me stupid.
Wrong. Clever people can write stupid posts. Of course, so can stupid people
Why do so many insist on going back over 20 years to look or analogies and patterns?
Because it appears so on surface AND people tend to take things for their face value.
Don't forget new ATV, that's running iOS. Once iOS 4.2 comes out and AirPlay gets underway I can see this appealing to current ipod/ipad/iphone owners.
So there's still plenty of growth for Apple even if it goes multiple carriers in US.
And when everyone thinks Apple is running out of gas, Steve pulls something new anyway. ONLY one thing can doom Apple. Complacence. Right now, they are far from it.
So, I would bet with almost 100% certainty come 2014, these numbers will be way off....
Apple's first priority is to deliver the best user experience possible. Apple's historically high margins have enabled them to invest vast amounts in R&D. We see the results in terms of a quality user experience.
People saw what Apple makes.
They USED what Apple makes.
Wondered WHY no other company seems capable of delivering a similar end-to-end quality experience.
They simply got tired of crappy hardware, crappy software, malware, etc., etc., etc..
What was the alternative to "the standard"? Apple. PERIOD.
The goal of any business is profit at the risk of a loss-- called the profit motive.
Everything else is secondary!
You can Yahoo or Bing the phrase for defiinitions-- here's one:
In the free market economy, the profit motive is the ultimate purpose of a commercial enterprise, to earn a profit. The profit motive notion is closely related to the concept of self-interest. Adam Smith originally described the workings of the free market not in terms of profit motive, but as a by-product of individual self-interest. Under this philosophy, the profit motive is axiomatic, in that the only way a company can further the self-interests of its shareholders is to earn a profit. The profit motive is merely a proxy for providing income to shareholders. As an extremely focused definition of business purpose, the profit motive engenders considerable criticism of capitalism generally and multinational corporations in particular. These critics point out the profit motive apparently allows no room for the interests of the customer, the employee, or society and the environment, unless those interests happen to align with what the profit motive dictates. Perhaps the profit motive is a bit like democracy: the worst corporate objective, except for all the others that have been tried.
http://www.investorglossary.com/profit-motive.htm.
.