Correct me if I'm wrong and please forgive my ignorance before boooooing me away.
So, in the US, where price isn't a factor (flagships cost more or less the same with a contract), the country where all of Apple's services are targeted, the country with more than 300 Apple Stores, the country that has the iPhone since 07, Android is ahead. Most people specifically chose Android. Why?
Easy. Android is sold everywhere on every carrier. iPhone was an AT&T exclusive for 4(?) yrs. many people don't choose Android. Android is chosen for them.
Correct me if I'm wrong and please forgive my ignorance before boooooing me away.
So, in the US, where price isn't a factor (flagships cost more or less the same with a contract), the country where all of Apple's services are targeted, the country with more than 300 Apple Stores, the country that has the iPhone since 07, Android is ahead. Most people specifically chose Android. Why?
I shortened your post to focus on question you posed above, even though I think you asked it rhetorically.
Apple has made a conscious decision to not let their products become commodity products, even if the overall market became a commodity market. Most companies cannot avoid the lure of large base of customers who cannot afford, or cannot appreciate, the value of certain prestige product. For example, I cannot enjoy the value of a Rollex watch while I absolutely enjoy the value of Apple products.
During the height of the iPod dominance there were always a lot of less expensive products. However Apple won the bulk of the market AND the minds of the consumer. They did this by (1) producing a highly designed product, and (2) advertising the hell out of it. This is somewhat the strategy Samsung is employing presently. However, the Samsung product is (1) a shade less well designed, has a far inferior ecosystem, and lacks the security of the Apple alternative. Samsung does balance this out with (2) spending a ton on advertising; ten to fourteen times as much money as Apple.
Because Apple does not just sell hardware and software, but the WHOLE user experience, any increase in advertising needs to be balanced with higher hardware production and an corresponding increase in the ecosystem: server farms, customer service, brick & mortar stores — all the while refreshing the user experience and adding to differenching their product.
If a company increases their advertising without improving the ability to delight the customer, then they risk becoming a commodity product, or cannot fulfill the orders their advertising created, and losing the caché of a delighting company/product. Either way, they lose.
Apple is sticking to their battle plan which is "slow and steady" win the game. Apple has not been distracted by trying to gain market share at the cost of losing their prestige label.
That just emphasizes the fact that smartphone sales are the wrong metric. Apple is gaining mobile phone sales with a steady exponential growth: penetration/nonpenetration is growing exponentially with a constant exponent. Its steady growth is increasingly at the expense of everyone else, since the smartphone pie isn't growing much anymore in the US. But the total pie of mobile phone subscribers has been almost constant all along. What logistic growth means is that Apple is taking over the US mobile phone market, limited only by the supply of mobile subscribers, with no effective competitors.
That just emphasizes the fact that smartphone sales are the wrong metric. Apple is gaining mobile phone sales with a steady exponential growth: penetration/nonpenetration is growing exponentially with a constant exponent. Its steady growth is increasingly at the expense of everyone else, since the smartphone pie isn't growing much anymore in the US. But the total pie of mobile phone subscribers has been almost constant all along. What logistic growth means is that Apple is taking over the US mobile phone market, limited only by the supply of mobile subscribers, with no effective competitors.
Certainly a valid way of looking at it. Nice post.
Easy. Android is sold everywhere on every carrier. iPhone was an AT&T exclusive for 4(?) yrs. many people don't choose Android. Android is chosen for them.
You couldn't be more correct. That multi year deal let Android gain a foothold on the other carriers.
The "tiny" screen or the "huge" amounts of non-screen space?
As a percentage of the screen size, Apple has some of the bigger bezels in the business. It is largely a non-issue on the iPhones, since with their small screens the overall size of the phone can remain easily pocketable. If they do indeed increase their screen size to the 5"+ range, and leave their bezels in the same proportion (or even the same size), the phone is not likely to be one I would switch to.
Apples "tiny" screen is 90.2mm high. The overall phone height is 123.8mm. Basically the iPhone 5s height is 1/3 bezel. That works for the current screen size, but on a larger screen it would be like trying to stick a cricket bat in your pocket. I'm sure Apple is aware of it and will work to reduce their bezels *if* they even choose to provide their users a choice of a larger screen size.
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/162874/apple-continues-to-add-share-in-u-s-smartphone-market-now-holds-42/40#post_2483677" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false">Quote:<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>hill60</strong> <a href="/t/162874/apple-continues-to-add-share-in-u-s-smartphone-market-now-holds-42/40#post_2483677"><img alt="View Post" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <p> </p><p>So which is bigger?</p><p> </p><p>The "tiny" screen or the "huge" amounts of non-screen space?</p></div></div><p> </p><p>As a percentage of the screen size, Apple has some of the bigger bezels in the business. It is largely a non-issue on the iPhones, since with their small screens the overall size of the phone can remain easily pocketable. If they do indeed increase their screen size to the 5"+ range, and leave their bezels in the same proportion (or even the same size), the phone is not likely to be one I would switch to.</p><p> </p><p>Apples "tiny" screen is 90.2mm high. The overall phone height is 123.8mm. Basically the iPhone 5s height is 1/3 bezel. That works for the current screen size, but on a larger screen it would be like trying to stick a cricket bat in your pocket. I'm sure Apple is aware of it and will work to reduce their bezels *if* they even choose to provide their users a choice of a larger screen size. </p>
Not if the finger print scanner need to be a huge round button. The only way is to have lopsided bezel which I think will look terrible.
Comments
Easy. Android is sold everywhere on every carrier. iPhone was an AT&T exclusive for 4(?) yrs. many people don't choose Android. Android is chosen for them.
I shortened your post to focus on question you posed above, even though I think you asked it rhetorically.
Apple has made a conscious decision to not let their products become commodity products, even if the overall market became a commodity market. Most companies cannot avoid the lure of large base of customers who cannot afford, or cannot appreciate, the value of certain prestige product. For example, I cannot enjoy the value of a Rollex watch while I absolutely enjoy the value of Apple products.
During the height of the iPod dominance there were always a lot of less expensive products. However Apple won the bulk of the market AND the minds of the consumer. They did this by (1) producing a highly designed product, and (2) advertising the hell out of it. This is somewhat the strategy Samsung is employing presently. However, the Samsung product is (1) a shade less well designed, has a far inferior ecosystem, and lacks the security of the Apple alternative. Samsung does balance this out with (2) spending a ton on advertising; ten to fourteen times as much money as Apple.
Because Apple does not just sell hardware and software, but the WHOLE user experience, any increase in advertising needs to be balanced with higher hardware production and an corresponding increase in the ecosystem: server farms, customer service, brick & mortar stores — all the while refreshing the user experience and adding to differenching their product.
If a company increases their advertising without improving the ability to delight the customer, then they risk becoming a commodity product, or cannot fulfill the orders their advertising created, and losing the caché of a delighting company/product. Either way, they lose.
Apple is sticking to their battle plan which is "slow and steady" win the game. Apple has not been distracted by trying to gain market share at the cost of losing their prestige label.
...the 4 came out and still had a tiny screen...
The iPhones have huge amounts of non-screen space at the top and bottom...
So which is bigger?
The "tiny" screen or the "huge" amounts of non-screen space?
Horace also said smartphone sales would reach the saturation point in 2015, beginning a decline.
http://www.asymco.com/2013/10/07/when-will-the-us-reach-smartphone-saturation/
That just emphasizes the fact that smartphone sales are the wrong metric. Apple is gaining mobile phone sales with a steady exponential growth: penetration/nonpenetration is growing exponentially with a constant exponent. Its steady growth is increasingly at the expense of everyone else, since the smartphone pie isn't growing much anymore in the US. But the total pie of mobile phone subscribers has been almost constant all along. What logistic growth means is that Apple is taking over the US mobile phone market, limited only by the supply of mobile subscribers, with no effective competitors.
Certainly a valid way of looking at it. Nice post.
You couldn't be more correct. That multi year deal let Android gain a foothold on the other carriers.
So which is bigger?
The "tiny" screen or the "huge" amounts of non-screen space?
As a percentage of the screen size, Apple has some of the bigger bezels in the business. It is largely a non-issue on the iPhones, since with their small screens the overall size of the phone can remain easily pocketable. If they do indeed increase their screen size to the 5"+ range, and leave their bezels in the same proportion (or even the same size), the phone is not likely to be one I would switch to.
Apples "tiny" screen is 90.2mm high. The overall phone height is 123.8mm. Basically the iPhone 5s height is 1/3 bezel. That works for the current screen size, but on a larger screen it would be like trying to stick a cricket bat in your pocket. I'm sure Apple is aware of it and will work to reduce their bezels *if* they even choose to provide their users a choice of a larger screen size.
Not if the finger print scanner need to be a huge round button. The only way is to have lopsided bezel which I think will look terrible.