Nope. Control+Command+D tells me that "overcharging" means to charge someone "too much" for a product or service.
"Too much" would mean that no one can buy them. Seems that Apple sells more every quarter than the last. Guess that people don't think they're overcharging.
Relative market share is stagnating. Nokia also sells more every quarter than the last. In unit sales they had a blow out year. Nokia are declining in market share.
So how is Nokia doing? Seems to have increased its unit sales by 36% Y-O-Y? So a fantastic year for them?
Or are we going to judge Nokia by market share and Apple by revenue?
Quote:
Not going to happen. Doesn't need to happen.
If it doesnt happen they will just repeat the mistakes of history. Apparently plenty of Apple fans want them in that niche. Fair enough. These things are vicious circles, however. Less market share, less apps. Less apps, less market share. Its not as if this is a difficult thing to understand.
And then, eventually, profit drops.
Apple have a potential market share at a certain price point, and obviously a larger one at a lower price point. Maintaining market share in a rapidly growing market means lots of profit. It is when the market itself it saturated that you have to grow market share to grow unit sales.
Just shows how discriminating people will pay a fair price for quality.
Quote:
?No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.? Henry Louis Mencken
'A fool and his money are soon parted'
It all depends on your point of view.
I own a few Apple products, but none of them run iOS. I perceive them to be too expensive and lacking in value, compared to alternative products.
I think the principle reason Apple has gotten away with charging so much for the iPhone, is that for most buyers, the true cost of the device is buried in a 'plan' and since it is effectively paid for in installments, the true cost is easier to bare.
There was a nice example in another thread a few days ago where some bright Aussie was proudly declaring that in Oz you can get a IP4 for 'free'. He and others really believe they are getting a $600-700 device for free when the total cost of their plan is $2000 or so over two years.
Actually even the biggest Apple fan is a fool if they don't realize they are getting hosed on Apple hardware.
Apples products have always sold because the software ecosystem, but the hardware is what makes the money.
Children may have their parents buy them an iPhone because it is cool to have one, educated adults buy the iPhone because of iOS and we put up with the hardware price.
Better example would be the overpriced 17" MBP. I mean really 2300.00 for a Core i5 with 4GB of Samsung ram. Yeah your taking it deep on that one when it comes to hardware. Add in Applecare you get to leave the store at about 2800.00.
I understand that there are AAPl investors on here ( as I am in a limited capacity), but it is also a site for fans. In that capacity the statement.
Apple is overcharging.
makes sense.
Although the Mac also makes money, and much of it over the $1000 mark, the fact remains that plenty of software is not available for it at 5% of the market place. In fact we are beholden to Apple and MS for a lot of stuff.
If these kind of figures continue - these relative market share declines or stagnations - then Apple will decline and the iOS platform will not be the app platform of first choice, or any choice, for developers.
Any students of Apple will know this. They really lost in the early 90's not the 80's. They survived the 80's because the race to the bottom took out the home computers, but in the early 90s they had a chance to become a large player - getting to 12% of the market in 1992 ( in effect taking over the vacuum left by the collapse by all other non-MS players).
Apple's reaction to this was to wallow in money. At 12% they may well have been the largest single computer manufacturer by unit ( or in the top 3) and certainly very high in revenue and profit. And then they lost to clones. Soon they were in the red. Soon they were < 3%.
Sure they start from a better place this time, but <10% is on the cards.
Apple can afford to sacrifice margin for volume - thats the story of growing to be one of the biggest electronic companies ever - and they have to. And they have to now. This year.
Perhaps you have just awoken from a deep sleep?
measured by revenue Apple is only the 110th "largest" company in the world.
But guess what? By market capitalization they are the second most valuable company in the world.
They are also one of the most profitable large companies in the world.
Seems to me that Apple is already the "largest electronic company ever" (whatever that means to you.)
Relative market share is stagnating. Nokia also sells more every quarter than the last. In unit sales they had a blow out year. Nokia are declining in market share.
Less profit to developers, less apps.... Its not as if this is a difficult thing to understand..
You completely miss the point - If the marketshare doesn't represent profitability for developers THEN there are less apps. If you don't make revenue off your apps - it doesn't matter how many devices the OS is installed on.
So, if you were in charge of a currency, you'd devalue it?
I'll say again, prices are set by markets not by CFOs.
The reason Dell and HP have pitifully small profitability numbers is not because they are generous.
It's because they are unable to add value.
C.
Yes I would devalue it if I was an export economy. Prices are obviously set by CFO's. The market for any product is along the supply and demand curve. That price is too high which is why Apple's market share is stagnating.
Apple can continue to grow unit sales and stagnate in the market. What happens when the market matures?
If the market matures and Apple are 10% of the market, or less, then the only way to increase unit sales is to reduce prices. However if Android is the de-facto standard then that may not work, and probably will not work because the 60+% ( or more if Nokia goes Android) of people on other phones will have no incentive to jump ship as they will have a software lockin, and most apps would be developed first ( or at all ) for Android.
Time to reduce prices is now. Or become beleaguered once again.
measured by revenue Apple is only the 110th "largest" company in the world.
But guess what? By market capitalization they are the second most valuable company in the world.
They are also one of the most profitable large companies in the world.
Seems to me that Apple is already the "largest electronic company ever" (whatever that means to you.)
Good man. That has no bearing on my arguments on market share, or the future direction of Apple. I thought I deflected this potential argument when I said they were amongst the most profitable computer manufacturers in the early 90's, a few years before they almost went bankrupt.
( I wonder if Nokia forums are full of denial on the decline in Market share for Nokia? )
You completely miss the point - If the marketshare doesn't represent profitability for developers THEN there are less apps. If you don't make revenue off your apps - it doesn't matter how many devices the OS is installed on.
What does that even mean? Are you saying that per-device revenue for Android phones is less than for iOS phones? If so that is true of software on the Mac VS Windows. Mac users buy more stuff. That stat is overwhelmed by the 5% market share.
The installed base for iOS is still quite high, and thus problems with apps and the platform are a year away. But it will happen. Present trends continue.
That is a total bullshit statement. Apple doesn't use anything that is any higher quality them most other companies.
I have no issue if people want to say they spend extra for Apple products because they like the experience, ecosystem or that they simply think Apple products are cool.
Its total bullshit to say they last longer or are somehow higher quality. You can go down the list of OEM's that Apple uses and it isn't any different then anyone else.
I know many people with Acer laptops that are just as old as my MBP and working just fine.
I call bullshit on your bullshit. I bought an HP laptop for my daughter. It broke down so much best buy gave us a new one. That one lasted 13 months. I said screw this, and bought a MacBook. Year and a half later still waiting for the first repair.
Yes I would devalue it if I was an export economy. Prices are obviously set by CFO's.
No. Utterly wrong.
A CFO who sets a price too high for the market, will face diminished profits as sales diminish.
A CFO who sets the price too low, will secure more sales, but profits will diminish due to the lower profit per unit.
He's therefore obliged to set a price which is fit for the market.
In other words, the market sets the price.
The reason Apple's profitability is so out of step with other electronics companies, is that its value-add is out of step with rest of the industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
The market for any product is along the supply and demand curve. That price is too high which is why Apple's market share is declining.
Apple's volume is increasing. And it's profit is increasing. And its share of industry profits is increasing. Just look at the bottom graph showing phone profit share.
So while other companies scramble for for market share. Their profits are squeezed, year on year in a race to the bottom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
Apple can continue to grow unit sales and stagnate in the market. What happens when the market matures?
The thing about this industry is that it is always changing and developing.
If Apple ONLY sold music playing iPods, then it would be facing a mature market - it would have to reduce prices. And you know what? It has.
But since Apple started selling iPods, it has introduced two new product categories. Categories which are not mature and have massive growth potential.
As long as Apple continues to innovate, it does not have to worry about maturity.
I call bullshit on your bullshit. I bought an HP laptop for my daughter. It broke down so much best buy gave us a new one. That one lasted 13 months. I said screw this, and bought a MacBook. Year and a half later still waiting for the first repair.
So because you bought one laptop you represent the global market? Ive had times where I had to return 2-3 iMacs to get one that works correctly, does my experience trump yours?
Every walk up to a Genius Bar at an Apple Store on a Saturday? Think that line is there because their hardware is working great?
Hardware is hardware, you can have something that last 7 years without any problems or die out of the box.
Apple often uses Samsung memory, LG panels and Hitachi hard drives. Nothing speical about any of that.
You are trying to take a customer service issue which Apple has one of the best and warp that into good and bad hardware. Two very different situations.
The previous story on market share refered to android. The story on profitability does not have android mentioned even once. When it comes to market share, they are all android phones, but when it comes to profitability, they break it down to handset maker. It would be interesting to see what google actually generates from these phones.
The main reason apple is so profitable is because they don't subscribe to the theory of having to compete on price. They don't give away their software, and they don't have 2 for 1 sales. This is why they will dominate the Pad market for years to come. At best the other companies might be able to produce a product that is equal, but they won't be able to sell one cheaper.
As far as apple charging too much, they aim for a 40% gross margin. When you sell 50 million phones a year, the result will be a lot of profit. Why would they lower their price? Investors want to see a return. Profits are not only looked at as an absolute ($) but as a percentage. Their margins have remained fairly consistent over the years.
In real life, more often than not, you get what you pay for.
Sure they start from a better place this time, but <10% is on the cards.
Apple can afford to sacrifice margin for volume - thats the story of growing to be one of the biggest electronic companies ever - and they have to. And they have to now. This year.
The high profit strategy has some benefits for them because they can now afford very expensive exclusive deals with hardware manufacturers that cost billions. I do see a strong need for them to have a budget iPhone though because the Android phones are now starting at a very low price and they are decent quality and we are already seeing Google surpass Symbian now. I don't think developers will desert Apple as they have a better marketplace and still over 100 million users but it's cause for concern.
I think the best strategy for them right now is to have an iPod Touch model that has an add-on phone component. Let the carriers fight to the bottom on their own, Apple can just sell the iPod and make their profit. There's no way that Android devices would compete with a $300 iPod as it can be fully subsidised at $25 per month on a 12 month contract.
A CFO who sets a price too high for the market, will face diminished profits as sales diminish.
A CFO who sets the price too low, will secure more sales, but profits will diminish due to the lower profit per unit.
A CFO who sets the price too high will see the market share decline, or stagnate. Both are indications of what the market think. An early adopters market is less price sensitive than a mature market. Which is where we are.
Quote:
He's therefore obliged to set a price which is fit for the market.
He is not obliged to anything. He could be milking margin at the expense of growth. Or lowering prices to grow market share which is essential in a software platform ( analogies with cars are thus misleading). At the moment Apple are doing the former - hence their record profits - although I admit there are supply constraints.
Quote:
Apple's volume is increasing. And it's profit is increasing. And its share of industry profits is increasing. Just look at the bottom graph showing phone profit share.
Nokia's volume is increasing. Here are the stats.
For the year though, Nokia remains the world's largest smartphone maker by both volume and sales, having sold 100m, up 48% on 2009, for total sales of €14.7bn.
That's right. Up 48%. Freakin' amazing, right?
Nevertheless Nokia's market share is declining. As for Apple Market share is declining in the US, and stagnant over the world.
There may be some gains from Verizon and China Mobile in 1H 2011, but that re-inforces my point that they need to grow market share. in any way possible.
Nobody is suggesting a race to the bottom, just covering most of the price points. Let ZTE sell what it sells at it's ( probably unsustainable) price point. Go above that. The iPod touch - with the same internals as the iPhone 4, and a retina type display - sells at about $200. An iPhone at that cost would be free on most contracts.
All Apple have to do is
1) Keep the 3GS ( adding CDMA) and lower the sticker price by $100 . Lower the iP4 by $100. Keep the iP5 as the high end device. That maintains the brand.
2) Keep the iPad 1 and lower it's sticker price by $100. iPad2 same price as last year, component supply willing.
I would actually be surprised if they didnt do this. Nevertheless there has never been such a change in any Market so fast. A seismic change. The Android increase last year to this. What is it? 650%.
If Apple were getting the same revenue growth and the same profits in any other era, it would be amazing. Last year, it wasn't so amazing. Same with Nokia. 48% YOY. Amazing! Just not in 2010.
So Apple need to up their game. AS a single company they are doing good - the best. Tributes all round. Handshakes. Big Hugs. Huggie wuggies.
I own a few Apple products, but none of them run iOS. I perceive them to be too expensive and lacking in value, compared to alternative products.
I think the principle reason Apple has gotten away with charging so much for the iPhone, is that for most buyers, the true cost of the device is buried in a 'plan' and since it is effectively paid for in installments, the true cost is easier to bare.
There was a nice example in another thread a few days ago where some bright Aussie was proudly declaring that in Oz you can get a IP4 for 'free'. He and others really believe they are getting a $600-700 device for free when the total cost of their plan is $2000 or so over two years.
I got my iPhone 4 for free on a $A59 plan which works out at $1416 over two years, of course you are basing your assumption on the rather strange notion that one would purchase a smartphone without actually using it i.e. paying for calls and data.
Comments
Nope. Control+Command+D tells me that "overcharging" means to charge someone "too much" for a product or service.
"Too much" would mean that no one can buy them. Seems that Apple sells more every quarter than the last. Guess that people don't think they're overcharging.
Relative market share is stagnating. Nokia also sells more every quarter than the last. In unit sales they had a blow out year. Nokia are declining in market share.
So how is Nokia doing? Seems to have increased its unit sales by 36% Y-O-Y? So a fantastic year for them?
Or are we going to judge Nokia by market share and Apple by revenue?
Not going to happen. Doesn't need to happen.
If it doesnt happen they will just repeat the mistakes of history. Apparently plenty of Apple fans want them in that niche. Fair enough. These things are vicious circles, however. Less market share, less apps. Less apps, less market share. Its not as if this is a difficult thing to understand.
And then, eventually, profit drops.
Apple have a potential market share at a certain price point, and obviously a larger one at a lower price point. Maintaining market share in a rapidly growing market means lots of profit. It is when the market itself it saturated that you have to grow market share to grow unit sales.
Apple can afford to sacrifice margin for volume
So, if you were in charge of a currency, you'd devalue it?
I'll say again, prices are set by markets not by CFOs.
The reason Dell and HP have pitifully small profitability numbers is not because they are generous.
It's because they are unable to add value.
C.
Just shows how discriminating people will pay a fair price for quality.
?No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.? Henry Louis Mencken
'A fool and his money are soon parted'
It all depends on your point of view.
I own a few Apple products, but none of them run iOS. I perceive them to be too expensive and lacking in value, compared to alternative products.
I think the principle reason Apple has gotten away with charging so much for the iPhone, is that for most buyers, the true cost of the device is buried in a 'plan' and since it is effectively paid for in installments, the true cost is easier to bare.
There was a nice example in another thread a few days ago where some bright Aussie was proudly declaring that in Oz you can get a IP4 for 'free'. He and others really believe they are getting a $600-700 device for free when the total cost of their plan is $2000 or so over two years.
Are the trolls even trying anymore?
Actually even the biggest Apple fan is a fool if they don't realize they are getting hosed on Apple hardware.
Apples products have always sold because the software ecosystem, but the hardware is what makes the money.
Children may have their parents buy them an iPhone because it is cool to have one, educated adults buy the iPhone because of iOS and we put up with the hardware price.
Better example would be the overpriced 17" MBP. I mean really 2300.00 for a Core i5 with 4GB of Samsung ram. Yeah your taking it deep on that one when it comes to hardware. Add in Applecare you get to leave the store at about 2800.00.
I understand that there are AAPl investors on here ( as I am in a limited capacity), but it is also a site for fans. In that capacity the statement.
Apple is overcharging.
makes sense.
Although the Mac also makes money, and much of it over the $1000 mark, the fact remains that plenty of software is not available for it at 5% of the market place. In fact we are beholden to Apple and MS for a lot of stuff.
If these kind of figures continue - these relative market share declines or stagnations - then Apple will decline and the iOS platform will not be the app platform of first choice, or any choice, for developers.
Any students of Apple will know this. They really lost in the early 90's not the 80's. They survived the 80's because the race to the bottom took out the home computers, but in the early 90s they had a chance to become a large player - getting to 12% of the market in 1992 ( in effect taking over the vacuum left by the collapse by all other non-MS players).
Apple's reaction to this was to wallow in money. At 12% they may well have been the largest single computer manufacturer by unit ( or in the top 3) and certainly very high in revenue and profit. And then they lost to clones. Soon they were in the red. Soon they were < 3%.
Sure they start from a better place this time, but <10% is on the cards.
Apple can afford to sacrifice margin for volume - thats the story of growing to be one of the biggest electronic companies ever - and they have to. And they have to now. This year.
Perhaps you have just awoken from a deep sleep?
measured by revenue Apple is only the 110th "largest" company in the world.
But guess what? By market capitalization they are the second most valuable company in the world.
They are also one of the most profitable large companies in the world.
Seems to me that Apple is already the "largest electronic company ever" (whatever that means to you.)
Relative market share is stagnating. Nokia also sells more every quarter than the last. In unit sales they had a blow out year. Nokia are declining in market share.
Less profit to developers, less apps.... Its not as if this is a difficult thing to understand..
You completely miss the point - If the marketshare doesn't represent profitability for developers THEN there are less apps. If you don't make revenue off your apps - it doesn't matter how many devices the OS is installed on.
So, if you were in charge of a currency, you'd devalue it?
I'll say again, prices are set by markets not by CFOs.
The reason Dell and HP have pitifully small profitability numbers is not because they are generous.
It's because they are unable to add value.
C.
Yes I would devalue it if I was an export economy. Prices are obviously set by CFO's. The market for any product is along the supply and demand curve. That price is too high which is why Apple's market share is stagnating.
Apple can continue to grow unit sales and stagnate in the market. What happens when the market matures?
If the market matures and Apple are 10% of the market, or less, then the only way to increase unit sales is to reduce prices. However if Android is the de-facto standard then that may not work, and probably will not work because the 60+% ( or more if Nokia goes Android) of people on other phones will have no incentive to jump ship as they will have a software lockin, and most apps would be developed first ( or at all ) for Android.
Time to reduce prices is now. Or become beleaguered once again.
Perhaps you have just awoken from a deep sleep?
measured by revenue Apple is only the 110th "largest" company in the world.
But guess what? By market capitalization they are the second most valuable company in the world.
They are also one of the most profitable large companies in the world.
Seems to me that Apple is already the "largest electronic company ever" (whatever that means to you.)
Good man. That has no bearing on my arguments on market share, or the future direction of Apple. I thought I deflected this potential argument when I said they were amongst the most profitable computer manufacturers in the early 90's, a few years before they almost went bankrupt.
( I wonder if Nokia forums are full of denial on the decline in Market share for Nokia? )
You completely miss the point - If the marketshare doesn't represent profitability for developers THEN there are less apps. If you don't make revenue off your apps - it doesn't matter how many devices the OS is installed on.
What does that even mean? Are you saying that per-device revenue for Android phones is less than for iOS phones? If so that is true of software on the Mac VS Windows. Mac users buy more stuff. That stat is overwhelmed by the 5% market share.
The installed base for iOS is still quite high, and thus problems with apps and the platform are a year away. But it will happen. Present trends continue.
That is a total bullshit statement. Apple doesn't use anything that is any higher quality them most other companies.
I have no issue if people want to say they spend extra for Apple products because they like the experience, ecosystem or that they simply think Apple products are cool.
Its total bullshit to say they last longer or are somehow higher quality. You can go down the list of OEM's that Apple uses and it isn't any different then anyone else.
I know many people with Acer laptops that are just as old as my MBP and working just fine.
I call bullshit on your bullshit. I bought an HP laptop for my daughter. It broke down so much best buy gave us a new one. That one lasted 13 months. I said screw this, and bought a MacBook. Year and a half later still waiting for the first repair.
Yes I would devalue it if I was an export economy. Prices are obviously set by CFO's.
No. Utterly wrong.
A CFO who sets a price too high for the market, will face diminished profits as sales diminish.
A CFO who sets the price too low, will secure more sales, but profits will diminish due to the lower profit per unit.
He's therefore obliged to set a price which is fit for the market.
In other words, the market sets the price.
The reason Apple's profitability is so out of step with other electronics companies, is that its value-add is out of step with rest of the industry.
The market for any product is along the supply and demand curve. That price is too high which is why Apple's market share is declining.
Apple's volume is increasing. And it's profit is increasing. And its share of industry profits is increasing. Just look at the bottom graph showing phone profit share.
So while other companies scramble for for market share. Their profits are squeezed, year on year in a race to the bottom.
Apple can continue to grow unit sales and stagnate in the market. What happens when the market matures?
The thing about this industry is that it is always changing and developing.
If Apple ONLY sold music playing iPods, then it would be facing a mature market - it would have to reduce prices. And you know what? It has.
But since Apple started selling iPods, it has introduced two new product categories. Categories which are not mature and have massive growth potential.
As long as Apple continues to innovate, it does not have to worry about maturity.
C.
I call bullshit on your bullshit. I bought an HP laptop for my daughter. It broke down so much best buy gave us a new one. That one lasted 13 months. I said screw this, and bought a MacBook. Year and a half later still waiting for the first repair.
So because you bought one laptop you represent the global market? Ive had times where I had to return 2-3 iMacs to get one that works correctly, does my experience trump yours?
Every walk up to a Genius Bar at an Apple Store on a Saturday? Think that line is there because their hardware is working great?
Hardware is hardware, you can have something that last 7 years without any problems or die out of the box.
Apple often uses Samsung memory, LG panels and Hitachi hard drives. Nothing speical about any of that.
You are trying to take a customer service issue which Apple has one of the best and warp that into good and bad hardware. Two very different situations.
The main reason apple is so profitable is because they don't subscribe to the theory of having to compete on price. They don't give away their software, and they don't have 2 for 1 sales. This is why they will dominate the Pad market for years to come. At best the other companies might be able to produce a product that is equal, but they won't be able to sell one cheaper.
As far as apple charging too much, they aim for a 40% gross margin. When you sell 50 million phones a year, the result will be a lot of profit. Why would they lower their price? Investors want to see a return. Profits are not only looked at as an absolute ($) but as a percentage. Their margins have remained fairly consistent over the years.
In real life, more often than not, you get what you pay for.
That is a total bullshit statement. Apple doesn't use anything that is any higher quality them most other companies.
Its total bullshit to say they last longer or are somehow higher quality.
So a one piece aluminum laptop body is the same quality as a multiple piece plastic laptop body?
Maybe you should consider wearing a helmet the next time you get on that skateboard.
So a one piece aluminum laptop body is the same quality as a multiple piece plastic laptop body?
Maybe you should consider wearing a helmet the next time you get on that skateboard.
So what you are saying then is the Macbook because it doesn't have an Alu body is shit?
Also making that statement do you even have a clue what an Alu case costs compared to plastic or are you just guessing? I know which one I am picking.
Your assumptions on hardware are as stupid as your assumption I skateboard.
Sure they start from a better place this time, but <10% is on the cards.
Apple can afford to sacrifice margin for volume - thats the story of growing to be one of the biggest electronic companies ever - and they have to. And they have to now. This year.
The high profit strategy has some benefits for them because they can now afford very expensive exclusive deals with hardware manufacturers that cost billions. I do see a strong need for them to have a budget iPhone though because the Android phones are now starting at a very low price and they are decent quality and we are already seeing Google surpass Symbian now. I don't think developers will desert Apple as they have a better marketplace and still over 100 million users but it's cause for concern.
I think the best strategy for them right now is to have an iPod Touch model that has an add-on phone component. Let the carriers fight to the bottom on their own, Apple can just sell the iPod and make their profit. There's no way that Android devices would compete with a $300 iPod as it can be fully subsidised at $25 per month on a 12 month contract.
So what you are saying then is the Macbook because it doesn't have an Alu body is shit?
Really? Is that what you got out of my comment?
No. Utterly wrong.
A CFO who sets a price too high for the market, will face diminished profits as sales diminish.
A CFO who sets the price too low, will secure more sales, but profits will diminish due to the lower profit per unit.
A CFO who sets the price too high will see the market share decline, or stagnate. Both are indications of what the market think. An early adopters market is less price sensitive than a mature market. Which is where we are.
He's therefore obliged to set a price which is fit for the market.
He is not obliged to anything. He could be milking margin at the expense of growth. Or lowering prices to grow market share which is essential in a software platform ( analogies with cars are thus misleading). At the moment Apple are doing the former - hence their record profits - although I admit there are supply constraints.
Apple's volume is increasing. And it's profit is increasing. And its share of industry profits is increasing. Just look at the bottom graph showing phone profit share.
Nokia's volume is increasing. Here are the stats.
For the year though, Nokia remains the world's largest smartphone maker by both volume and sales, having sold 100m, up 48% on 2009, for total sales of €14.7bn.
That's right. Up 48%. Freakin' amazing, right?
Nevertheless Nokia's market share is declining. As for Apple Market share is declining in the US, and stagnant over the world.
There may be some gains from Verizon and China Mobile in 1H 2011, but that re-inforces my point that they need to grow market share. in any way possible.
Nobody is suggesting a race to the bottom, just covering most of the price points. Let ZTE sell what it sells at it's ( probably unsustainable) price point. Go above that. The iPod touch - with the same internals as the iPhone 4, and a retina type display - sells at about $200. An iPhone at that cost would be free on most contracts.
All Apple have to do is
1) Keep the 3GS ( adding CDMA) and lower the sticker price by $100 . Lower the iP4 by $100. Keep the iP5 as the high end device. That maintains the brand.
2) Keep the iPad 1 and lower it's sticker price by $100. iPad2 same price as last year, component supply willing.
I would actually be surprised if they didnt do this. Nevertheless there has never been such a change in any Market so fast. A seismic change. The Android increase last year to this. What is it? 650%.
If Apple were getting the same revenue growth and the same profits in any other era, it would be amazing. Last year, it wasn't so amazing. Same with Nokia. 48% YOY. Amazing! Just not in 2010.
So Apple need to up their game. AS a single company they are doing good - the best. Tributes all round. Handshakes. Big Hugs. Huggie wuggies.
As a platform, not so well.
'A fool and his money are soon parted'
It all depends on your point of view.
I own a few Apple products, but none of them run iOS. I perceive them to be too expensive and lacking in value, compared to alternative products.
I think the principle reason Apple has gotten away with charging so much for the iPhone, is that for most buyers, the true cost of the device is buried in a 'plan' and since it is effectively paid for in installments, the true cost is easier to bare.
There was a nice example in another thread a few days ago where some bright Aussie was proudly declaring that in Oz you can get a IP4 for 'free'. He and others really believe they are getting a $600-700 device for free when the total cost of their plan is $2000 or so over two years.
I got my iPhone 4 for free on a $A59 plan which works out at $1416 over two years, of course you are basing your assumption on the rather strange notion that one would purchase a smartphone without actually using it i.e. paying for calls and data.