Right, I was misunderstanding Symbian and confusing it with something else. Fixed.
Why do you say the first iPhone was a featurephone?
Because you couldn't download any apps. You were stuck with what Apple supplied—just like any other featurephone. It was why I waited until the second year to buy an iPhone.
The first model had the potential to be a smartphone, and it did become one once the App Store opened, and iOS 2 came out, though it wasn't called iOS back then. But until that OS upgrade, and the availability of apps, it was a featurephone. Make no mistake about that.
But, amazingly enough, iPhone sales slip during the year, to fall to a low the last quarter before the new models come out.
I think carriers messing with their contract terms have somewhat blurred that cycle. For instance without paying a penalty I'm unwilling to sustain I have to wait six months after an October launch. And before this I hadn't missed a launch since the 3Gs
Profits are important. But I doubt you were around in the late 1980's through the early 1990’s, when Apple put profits before marketshare. As their marketshare shrunk, so did software developer love. That's a vicious cycle.
Today, Apple is doing very well indeed. But that's not assurance for the future. With their 15% worldwide smartphone share, at some point, software development will begin to move away from the platform. How low can that marketshare go before the problem becomes obvious to people such as yourself, who will then see it is a problem? People in third world countries won't always stay poor. In the worlds biggest market, China, there is a middle class that's estimated to be between 400 million to 600 million people. People whose incomes are rising much faster than anywhere else.
This isn't a simplistic issue. Everything matters, profits, sales, and marketshare.
In fact, I was around in the late 80s working on a b&w Mac SE and have worked on macs ever since '88 and know how close Apple came to folding. But the Apple of today is not the same company pre-Jobs' return and it's not being run by the likes of Sculler, Spindler, and Amelio.
I've been an investor since 2000 and have learned that Apple is always looking far into the future even though their present strategy may not appear so. I would also guarantee that Apple has looked beyond the smartphone as they're not afraid to cannibalize their own product. I would have sold their stock a long time ago had I not learned to panic from all the naysayers out there spouting the doom-and-gloom of the company. My cost basis per share is $1 and change, so I think I've done pretty well knowing the potential of the company and that Apple doesn't need the largest marketshare to make the most money. They have a loyal customer base that continues to buy/upgrade and they attract new customers by pulling them away from Android and Windows.
I also take the marketshare numbers with a grain of salt...I don't think they truly reflect the who paid for a device and is actually using it compared to how Apple reports sales. Samsung has already been caught lying about their tablet numbers in court and believe that extends to their smartphones as well. And how does the rise in income level in third world countries not play into Apple's favor in increasing marketshare? I have a feeling those 400-600M people with rising incomes would choose Apple over Samsung once they can afford it.
I think attendance at WWDC would contradict the notion that developers are falling out of love in light of marketshare. In 2012, it sold out in 2hrs; in 2013 it took 2 minutes; I have not seen 2014 numbers, but even if it took 4 hours it seems like the interest to develop for Apple would not be falling out of love. In fact, with a simpler programming language (Swift) you may see an increase in new developers.
Don't get me wrong...I'd love for Apple to dominate world-wide marketshare because that means more money...as an investor how would I not want that? When investors continue to see Apple print money they'll continue to buy the stock; when customers continue to see Apple improve their devices and branch out into new areas, they'll continue to buy more Apple products; and when developers continue to see record sales and new categories/devices, they'll continue to develop for Apple. This will keep the money machine at Apple running for some time to come...even if they sell 50 units to Samsung's 100.
Profits are important. But I doubt you were around in the late 1980's through the early 1990’s, when Apple put profits before marketshare. As their marketshare shrunk, so did software developer love. That's a vicious cycle.
Today, Apple is doing very well indeed. But that's not assurance for the future. With their 15% worldwide smartphone share, at some point, software development will begin to move away from the platform. How low can that marketshare go before the problem becomes obvious to people such as yourself, who will then see it is a problem? People in third world countries won't always stay poor. In the worlds biggest market, China, there is a middle class that's estimated to be between 400 million to 600 million people. People whose incomes are rising much faster than anywhere else.
This isn't a simplistic issue. Everything matters, profits, sales, and marketshare.
This isn't the 80s and 90s. Apple failed then because it tried to go after market share. Its Mac product line lost focus and try the shotgun approach. Apple has never had the majority of smartphone market share.
Exactly about China. That's why Apple will succeed, the middle class in China is growing fast.
If it runs a third party software, then it's a smartphone. If it doesn't, then it's not a smartphone. It's not that difficult to understand.
"Interwebs"? Seriously?
I believe my dumb phone back in the day could run apps. It certainly wasn't a smart phone. The definition is arbitrary and none of these reports explain how they define it.
In fact, I was around in the late 80s working on a b&w Mac SE and have worked on macs ever since '88 and know how close Apple came to folding. But the Apple of today is not the same company pre-Jobs' return and it's not being run by the likes of Sculler, Spindler, and Amelio.
I've been an investor since 2000 and have learned that Apple is always looking far into the future even though their present strategy may not appear so. I would also guarantee that Apple has looked beyond the smartphone as they're not afraid to cannibalize their own product. I would have sold their stock a long time ago had I not learned to panic from all the naysayers out there spouting the doom-and-gloom of the company. My cost basis per share is $1 and change, so I think I've done pretty well knowing the potential of the company and that Apple doesn't need the largest marketshare to make the most money. They have a loyal customer base that continues to buy/upgrade and they attract new customers by pulling them away from Android and Windows.
I also take the marketshare numbers with a grain of salt...I don't think they truly reflect the who paid for a device and is actually using it compared to how Apple reports sales. Samsung has already been caught lying about their tablet numbers in court and believe that extends to their smartphones as well. And how does the rise in income level in third world countries not play into Apple's favor in increasing marketshare? I have a feeling those 400-600M people with rising incomes would choose Apple over Samsung once they can afford it.
I think attendance at WWDC would contradict the notion that developers are falling out of love in light of marketshare. In 2012, it sold out in 2hrs; in 2013 it took 2 minutes; I have not seen 2014 numbers, but even if it took 4 hours it seems like the interest to develop for Apple would not be falling out of love. In fact, with a simpler programming language (Swift) you may see an increase in new developers.
Don't get me wrong...I'd love for Apple to dominate world-wide marketshare because that means more money...as an investor how would I not want that? When investors continue to see Apple print money they'll continue to buy the stock; when customers continue to see Apple improve their devices and branch out into new areas, they'll continue to buy more Apple products; and when developers continue to see record sales and new categories/devices, they'll continue to develop for Apple. This will keep the money machine at Apple running for some time to come...even if they sell 50 units to Samsung's 100.
You're missing my point, I'm not saying that Apple needs the biggest marketshare. But what is happening worldwide is that we're seeing a shrinking of marketshare. So the valid question looms; at what point does that shrinking marketshare come to be a significant problem? It's 15% now! but was higher in recent years. Is 10% ok? 5%? At some point things will fall off the cliff.
And if you think that Apple doesn't care, then you would be wrong. Jobs himself continually talked marketshare when it was good, or rising. Cook does the same. Both talked about small Mac share as giving them a lot of room to grow.
We would not have seen the iPad Mini if it were not for marketshare considerations, nor the 5C. I'm sure we can look at more products that have been designed to either grow marketshare, or prevent its loss.
I'm a long time investor as well, from the 90's. But my biggest purchase was in mid 2004. I've held on to all of my stock, and am very happy with where it's gone. But that doesn't mean I'm happy with everything Apple has done. But let's not forget the big plunge we had since the $705 high. That was because of the perception that Apple had had it. Marketshare was dropping, profits dropped, margins dropped, and sales were well below expectations. As those numbers look to be reversing, Apple stock has begun to rise again. There is a dramatic correlation between what is perceived and stock price.
As far as Samsung goes, I've said many times here, on other tech sites, and the financial sites I'm on, that I don't trust the guesses analylitic firms make, as there is no way to back any of those numbers up, as Samsung doesn't give any quarterly numbers out for smartphones or tablets, and hasn't done so since first calendar quarter of 2011. But still, there are overall industry numbers out there, accurate or not, that Apple is measured against. When Apple measures well, the stock goes up, when they measure badly, the stock goes down. Really, it's pretty obvious. It isn't too much to ask of Apple that they attempt to match industry growth in an industry they pretty much invented.
This isn't the 80s and 90s. Apple failed then because it tried to go after market share. Its Mac product line lost focus and try the shotgun approach. Apple has never had the majority of smartphone market share.
Exactly about China. That's why Apple will succeed, the middle class in China is growing fast.
I believe my dumb phone back in the day could run apps. It certainly wasn't a smart phone. The definition is arbitrary and none of these reports explain how they define it.
The first iPhone was definitely a smartphone.
The only time in that time period that Apple attempted to go after marketshare was the ill timed attempt by Michael Spindler in Christmas 1995. Back then I was on the board of one of the largest Mac groups. NYMUG had over 5,400 members in the mid 90's. In the fall of 1995, Apple came to our meeting, and announced that they were going to increase marketshare from 12% to 16% with a new machine that would cost "only" $4,000, including keyboard. We were pretty impressed. That was when computers were a major USA export.
But even after the meeting, when the board and Apple's representatives went out to dinner, we couldn't get them to tell us anything about this new line of machines. That was really too bad. It turned out that these machines were based on the Motorola 68040, which was depreciated by Apple already in favor of the PPC. It failed, and thus Apple's long term travails began. But, their other attempt at marketshare, the iPod, and iTunes, went the other way. If it weren't for that dominance, Apple wouldn't be the company it is today.
But otherwise, there were no major problems that could be attributed to Apple that resulted for attempts to grab marketshare.
But as I've said elsewhere, if you think I'm advocating that Apple make another grab at dominance, you're wrong. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that if marketshare drops to much further, it will cause problems. That's very different from saying they have to dominate.
I understand the higher end market Apple is in when compared to the entire market, which includes very inexpensive items. I don't expect Apple to compete there, nor would I want them to,
And no, the first iPhone was definitely not a smartphone. Say what you want to make yourself feel better about it, but having the potential to be something is not being it.
I'm not concerned with record sales. I'm concerned with what the percentage of increase is. Apple needs to at least keep pace with industry sales, and preferably keep ahead of it. It will be good if Apple's sales this quarter sets a record, no doubt. But it's a competitive landscape.
Apple had a very good May, according to reports, better than they've had for several years. I hope this June will be the same.
The thing that set the stock up for such a recent rise wasn't stock buybacks as some would like to have us think, but rather the very good last quarter, and information about Apple's competitiveness since then. The WWDC has added to that with some major announcements that weren't expected, and announcements that were very helpful to the enterprise.
If Apple can have another great quarter again, in which they beat average industry growth, the stock will be on more secure grounds for further growth. And if the new products, that look very good, from what we've been hearing, sell as well as thought, then Apple will be definitely back on track.
since Apple is actually losing market shares, its not keeping up. That being said, the iphone 6 may changed this, especially if the iphone 5c see a major drop in price.
The last quarter ipad sales worries me. This is a sector where Apple is losing big chunks of market shares.
Explain to me EXACTLY how Apple can keep up with the broad market that is selling $50 smartphones?
That's like expecting Ferrarri to sell as many $250k cars as Toyota sells $20k Corrolla's.
Funny how when Apple was gaining market shares nobody was trying to split the smartphone market into sub-categories. Now that Apple is loosing market shares, some people are trying to find a sub-category where it isnt. Too much coolaid if you ask me.
But as I've said elsewhere, if you think I'm advocating that Apple make another grab at dominance, you're wrong. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that if marketshare drops to much further, it will cause problems. That's very different from saying they have to dominate.
.
indeed. how can Apple expect to get into cars, home appliances and health if they only have a tiny market share. Third party will go where the volume is. Too little market shares can also endanger the entire ecosystem.
Because you couldn't download any apps. You were stuck with what Apple supplied—just like any other featurephone. It was why I waited until the second year to buy an iPhone.
The first model had the potential to be a smartphone, and it did become one once the App Store opened, and iOS 2 came out, though it wasn't called iOS back then. But until that OS upgrade, and the availability of apps, it was a featurephone. Make no mistake about that.
Okay, I stand corrected on Symbian, but I think it's a bit rich of you to say that I'm playing at semantics in your previous reply to me, where you wrote:
Quote:
You're being very semantic here when saying capable of running third party software rather that just saying that it runs third party software.
Because in fact your distinction also relies upon semantics " it did become one once the App Store opened, and iOS 2 came out". I think these semantics are very crux of our disagreement. You're saying the iPhone 1 was not a smartphone until it had a software upgrade and downloadable apps became available. I'm saying the device was a smartphone all along, even if the user never went to iOS2 or downloaded any apps. Since the iPhone 1 had all the hardware and programming necessary to upgrade the OS and download software, it was, in my eyes, a smartphone.
Quote:
I know that a number of people run their phones as a featurephone, because they don't download software. But I know iPhone users like that too.
And I'm saying that an iPhone 5s is a smartphone, even if the user doesn't download anything, and keeps it in "airplane mode" (i.e., software is blocked from downloading anything). And a handgun is a handgun, even if there are no bullets in it, and it's never been fired.
And I'm not alone in this assessment, I guess. Quoting the infamous Wikipedia:
Furthermore, I suppose the iPod touch was a "smartpod".
And I have now reconsidered my LG840G to be a cheap and inexpensive basic smartphone, because it can download java apps. Thank you for the civil debate.
Market share was ALWAYS in context with the top end.
No one here was bragging about market share of the iPhone vs Feature phones in 2008-2012. Basically the $50 smart phone is taking the place of the feature phone.
So are you telling me a $50 phone sale should be treated the same as a $700 phone?
Even though the $50 phone yields $0 profit?
Even though the $50 phone yields $0 profit for app makers?
Even though an iPhone user spends $200+ a year buying Apps/Music/Movies?
Even though an iPhone user had a great chance of buying other Apple products like a Mac?
Hard to take you seriously.
It like comparing Louis Vutton luxury bag sales (Apple) to trash bags ($50 android phone).
When a $200 phone can do pretty much the same thing has a $700 iphone it becomes a problem...
I don't see how 600,000,000 itunes accounts with credit card numbers is endangering the entire ecosystem. And growing. They are adding 500,000 users a day.
1 Apple user > 20 Android users who don't buy anything.
I'm sorry I'd rather have 600,000,000 of the riches customers instead of 2 billion customers who can hardly afford a data plan.
imo youre problem is this, this is not true anymore.
But as I've said elsewhere, if you think I'm advocating that Apple make another grab at dominance, you're wrong. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that if marketshare drops to much further, it will cause problems. That's very different from saying they have to dominate.
And no, the first iPhone was definitely not a smartphone. Say what you want to make yourself feel better about it, but having the potential to be something is not being it.
Wrong. Usage market share is more important than shipment market share. Devs care about who is using smartphones than who has them. If usage drops to single digits, yea Apple will be in trouble. Then again iOS apps can be used on all idevices. Why do people forget that?
The iPhone is most definitely a smartphone. Deny it all you want, but you won't change history.
But, amazingly enough, iPhone sales slip during the year, to fall to a low the last quarter before the new models come out.
And also amazingly, they spike for the Christmas shopping quarter.
Looking at the raw numbers and claiming one effect causes it all is a red herring. Apple knows when people shop for new electronics (Q4) so they time their release to maximize that effect. People know that they will release then (your point) but Apple (and all companies) know when people spend less on their products. It's a symbiotic relationship that can't be explained away just because the data fits your PoV.
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/180541/apple-on-pace-to-sell-record-39m-iphones-in-june-quarter-survey-finds#post_2548519" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span><div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>sog35</strong> <a href="/t/180541/apple-on-pace-to-sell-record-39m-iphones-in-june-quarter-survey-finds#post_2548519"><img src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" class="inlineimg" alt="View Post"/></a><br/><br/><p> </p><p>Market share was ALWAYS in context with the top end.</p><p> </p><p>No one here was bragging about market share of the iPhone vs Feature phones in 2008-2012. Basically the $50 smart phone is taking the place of the feature phone.</p><p> </p><p>So are you telling me a $50 phone sale should be treated the same as a $700 phone?</p><p>Even though the $50 phone yields $0 profit?</p><p>Even though the $50 phone yields $0 profit for app makers?</p><p>Even though an iPhone user spends $200+ a year buying Apps/Music/Movies?</p><p>Even though an iPhone user had a great chance of buying other Apple products like a Mac?</p><p>Hard to take you seriously.</p><p> </p><p>It like comparing Louis Vutton luxury bag sales (Apple) to trash bags ($50 android phone).</p></div></div><p> </p>
When a $200 phone can do pretty much the same thing has a $700 iphone it becomes a problem...
That's been the case for 7 years yet iPhones are still selling shit tons.
Market share was ALWAYS in context with the top end.
No one here was bragging about market share of the iPhone vs Feature phones in 2008-2012. Basically the $50 smart phone is taking the place of the feature phone.
So are you telling me a $50 phone sale should be treated the same as a $700 phone?
Even though the $50 phone yields $0 profit?
Even though the $50 phone yields $0 profit for app makers?
Even though an iPhone user spends $200+ a year buying Apps/Music/Movies?
Even though an iPhone user had a great chance of buying other Apple products like a Mac?
Hard to take you seriously.
It like comparing Louis Vutton luxury bag sales (Apple) to trash bags ($50 android phone).
When a $200 phone can do pretty much the same thing has a $700 iphone it becomes a problem...
Programmers will go where the money goes. Apple continues to make the environment better for developers to make money where Android does not.
iOS 8 will work all the way back to the 4s, and will probably hit 80-90% saturation on their phones, which makes developers' jobs easier. When you see the stats on how much web traffic there is between iOS and Android (which is the most basic of uses on smartphones) there is no doubt that people who buy more expensive phones do more with their phones.
Putting all your eggs in the market share basket (singular "share" because it is share of the market - just a little help since you are non-native English speaking) is not seeing the forest for the trees.
Yes, market share can be important, but you have to look at the situation as a whole and not just concentrate on the one tree that isn't doing quite as well as the others in the forest.
the problem is the definition of "smartphone"...Most of the growth over the last few years is coming from feature phones that are now considered "smartphones".
A big problem is in the definition of "Android". Most numbers include the AOSP OS phones that are at least, and likely more than half the Android market's sales. Whether that should be true is difficult to say, but I don't think it is. Nevertheless, it's a perception problem that needs to be addressed.
If both of the above are not enough to inflate the "Android" numbers, there are the non-existent Samsung phone shipments that never happened, AND all the "white box" phones that analysts estimate and add to the android phone mix of which there are no trace of ever being made or sold.
The first iPhone was a featurephone, it wasn't until the second year that it became a smartphone.
While I understand where you are coming from with that statement, and in some sense you are correct. However, the earlier smart phones I looked at, such as those running the MS OS, were so near-impossible to use (and full of lag) that they were quickly replaced with the iPhone.
I remember having a sense back during the first year that the iPhone was more capable than the leading "smart phones" of the day. I can't remember exactly though, whether it was the 2008 version of the iPhone that really took off, but it does seem that the 2007 iPhone really disrupted the market and to do so it would have had to steal a chunk of the existing "smart phone" market. Not what I'd expect from an expensive "feature phone."
That first year Apple's iPhone was attacked by so many, and accused in so many was of being deficient (too expensive, no real keyboard, etc.) but I don't recall anyone saying it wasn't a "smart phone." When all is said, I may be suffering from selective memory, but that's how I recall those early iPhone days.
Explain to me EXACTLY how Apple can keep up with the broad market that is selling $50 smartphones?
That's like expecting Ferrarri to sell as many $250k cars as Toyota sells $20k Corrolla's.
That has little to do with the price of phones. The entire market for smartphones is still growing, and markets where $50, or in reality, mostly $100-300 smartphones are sold will, or are moving up, as in China. It's not impossible by any means.
Comments
Because you couldn't download any apps. You were stuck with what Apple supplied—just like any other featurephone. It was why I waited until the second year to buy an iPhone.
The first model had the potential to be a smartphone, and it did become one once the App Store opened, and iOS 2 came out, though it wasn't called iOS back then. But until that OS upgrade, and the availability of apps, it was a featurephone. Make no mistake about that.
But, amazingly enough, iPhone sales slip during the year, to fall to a low the last quarter before the new models come out.
I think carriers messing with their contract terms have somewhat blurred that cycle. For instance without paying a penalty I'm unwilling to sustain I have to wait six months after an October launch. And before this I hadn't missed a launch since the 3Gs
Profits are important. But I doubt you were around in the late 1980's through the early 1990’s, when Apple put profits before marketshare. As their marketshare shrunk, so did software developer love. That's a vicious cycle.
Today, Apple is doing very well indeed. But that's not assurance for the future. With their 15% worldwide smartphone share, at some point, software development will begin to move away from the platform. How low can that marketshare go before the problem becomes obvious to people such as yourself, who will then see it is a problem? People in third world countries won't always stay poor. In the worlds biggest market, China, there is a middle class that's estimated to be between 400 million to 600 million people. People whose incomes are rising much faster than anywhere else.
This isn't a simplistic issue. Everything matters, profits, sales, and marketshare.
In fact, I was around in the late 80s working on a b&w Mac SE and have worked on macs ever since '88 and know how close Apple came to folding. But the Apple of today is not the same company pre-Jobs' return and it's not being run by the likes of Sculler, Spindler, and Amelio.
I've been an investor since 2000 and have learned that Apple is always looking far into the future even though their present strategy may not appear so. I would also guarantee that Apple has looked beyond the smartphone as they're not afraid to cannibalize their own product. I would have sold their stock a long time ago had I not learned to panic from all the naysayers out there spouting the doom-and-gloom of the company. My cost basis per share is $1 and change, so I think I've done pretty well knowing the potential of the company and that Apple doesn't need the largest marketshare to make the most money. They have a loyal customer base that continues to buy/upgrade and they attract new customers by pulling them away from Android and Windows.
I also take the marketshare numbers with a grain of salt...I don't think they truly reflect the who paid for a device and is actually using it compared to how Apple reports sales. Samsung has already been caught lying about their tablet numbers in court and believe that extends to their smartphones as well. And how does the rise in income level in third world countries not play into Apple's favor in increasing marketshare? I have a feeling those 400-600M people with rising incomes would choose Apple over Samsung once they can afford it.
I think attendance at WWDC would contradict the notion that developers are falling out of love in light of marketshare. In 2012, it sold out in 2hrs; in 2013 it took 2 minutes; I have not seen 2014 numbers, but even if it took 4 hours it seems like the interest to develop for Apple would not be falling out of love. In fact, with a simpler programming language (Swift) you may see an increase in new developers.
Don't get me wrong...I'd love for Apple to dominate world-wide marketshare because that means more money...as an investor how would I not want that? When investors continue to see Apple print money they'll continue to buy the stock; when customers continue to see Apple improve their devices and branch out into new areas, they'll continue to buy more Apple products; and when developers continue to see record sales and new categories/devices, they'll continue to develop for Apple. This will keep the money machine at Apple running for some time to come...even if they sell 50 units to Samsung's 100.
This isn't the 80s and 90s. Apple failed then because it tried to go after market share. Its Mac product line lost focus and try the shotgun approach. Apple has never had the majority of smartphone market share.
Exactly about China. That's why Apple will succeed, the middle class in China is growing fast.
I believe my dumb phone back in the day could run apps. It certainly wasn't a smart phone. The definition is arbitrary and none of these reports explain how they define it.
The first iPhone was definitely a smartphone.
You're missing my point, I'm not saying that Apple needs the biggest marketshare. But what is happening worldwide is that we're seeing a shrinking of marketshare. So the valid question looms; at what point does that shrinking marketshare come to be a significant problem? It's 15% now! but was higher in recent years. Is 10% ok? 5%? At some point things will fall off the cliff.
And if you think that Apple doesn't care, then you would be wrong. Jobs himself continually talked marketshare when it was good, or rising. Cook does the same. Both talked about small Mac share as giving them a lot of room to grow.
We would not have seen the iPad Mini if it were not for marketshare considerations, nor the 5C. I'm sure we can look at more products that have been designed to either grow marketshare, or prevent its loss.
I'm a long time investor as well, from the 90's. But my biggest purchase was in mid 2004. I've held on to all of my stock, and am very happy with where it's gone. But that doesn't mean I'm happy with everything Apple has done. But let's not forget the big plunge we had since the $705 high. That was because of the perception that Apple had had it. Marketshare was dropping, profits dropped, margins dropped, and sales were well below expectations. As those numbers look to be reversing, Apple stock has begun to rise again. There is a dramatic correlation between what is perceived and stock price.
As far as Samsung goes, I've said many times here, on other tech sites, and the financial sites I'm on, that I don't trust the guesses analylitic firms make, as there is no way to back any of those numbers up, as Samsung doesn't give any quarterly numbers out for smartphones or tablets, and hasn't done so since first calendar quarter of 2011. But still, there are overall industry numbers out there, accurate or not, that Apple is measured against. When Apple measures well, the stock goes up, when they measure badly, the stock goes down. Really, it's pretty obvious. It isn't too much to ask of Apple that they attempt to match industry growth in an industry they pretty much invented.
The only time in that time period that Apple attempted to go after marketshare was the ill timed attempt by Michael Spindler in Christmas 1995. Back then I was on the board of one of the largest Mac groups. NYMUG had over 5,400 members in the mid 90's. In the fall of 1995, Apple came to our meeting, and announced that they were going to increase marketshare from 12% to 16% with a new machine that would cost "only" $4,000, including keyboard. We were pretty impressed. That was when computers were a major USA export.
But even after the meeting, when the board and Apple's representatives went out to dinner, we couldn't get them to tell us anything about this new line of machines. That was really too bad. It turned out that these machines were based on the Motorola 68040, which was depreciated by Apple already in favor of the PPC. It failed, and thus Apple's long term travails began. But, their other attempt at marketshare, the iPod, and iTunes, went the other way. If it weren't for that dominance, Apple wouldn't be the company it is today.
But otherwise, there were no major problems that could be attributed to Apple that resulted for attempts to grab marketshare.
But as I've said elsewhere, if you think I'm advocating that Apple make another grab at dominance, you're wrong. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that if marketshare drops to much further, it will cause problems. That's very different from saying they have to dominate.
I understand the higher end market Apple is in when compared to the entire market, which includes very inexpensive items. I don't expect Apple to compete there, nor would I want them to,
And no, the first iPhone was definitely not a smartphone. Say what you want to make yourself feel better about it, but having the potential to be something is not being it.
I'm not concerned with record sales. I'm concerned with what the percentage of increase is. Apple needs to at least keep pace with industry sales, and preferably keep ahead of it. It will be good if Apple's sales this quarter sets a record, no doubt. But it's a competitive landscape.
Apple had a very good May, according to reports, better than they've had for several years. I hope this June will be the same.
The thing that set the stock up for such a recent rise wasn't stock buybacks as some would like to have us think, but rather the very good last quarter, and information about Apple's competitiveness since then. The WWDC has added to that with some major announcements that weren't expected, and announcements that were very helpful to the enterprise.
If Apple can have another great quarter again, in which they beat average industry growth, the stock will be on more secure grounds for further growth. And if the new products, that look very good, from what we've been hearing, sell as well as thought, then Apple will be definitely back on track.
since Apple is actually losing market shares, its not keeping up. That being said, the iphone 6 may changed this, especially if the iphone 5c see a major drop in price.The last quarter ipad sales worries me. This is a sector where Apple is losing big chunks of market shares.
Explain to me EXACTLY how Apple can keep up with the broad market that is selling $50 smartphones?
That's like expecting Ferrarri to sell as many $250k cars as Toyota sells $20k Corrolla's.
Funny how when Apple was gaining market shares nobody was trying to split the smartphone market into sub-categories. Now that Apple is loosing market shares, some people are trying to find a sub-category where it isnt. Too much coolaid if you ask me.But as I've said elsewhere, if you think I'm advocating that Apple make another grab at dominance, you're wrong. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that if marketshare drops to much further, it will cause problems. That's very different from saying they have to dominate.
.
indeed. how can Apple expect to get into cars, home appliances and health if they only have a tiny market share. Third party will go where the volume is. Too little market shares can also endanger the entire ecosystem.Because you couldn't download any apps. You were stuck with what Apple supplied—just like any other featurephone. It was why I waited until the second year to buy an iPhone.
The first model had the potential to be a smartphone, and it did become one once the App Store opened, and iOS 2 came out, though it wasn't called iOS back then. But until that OS upgrade, and the availability of apps, it was a featurephone. Make no mistake about that.
Okay, I stand corrected on Symbian, but I think it's a bit rich of you to say that I'm playing at semantics in your previous reply to me, where you wrote:
Because in fact your distinction also relies upon semantics " it did become one once the App Store opened, and iOS 2 came out". I think these semantics are very crux of our disagreement. You're saying the iPhone 1 was not a smartphone until it had a software upgrade and downloadable apps became available. I'm saying the device was a smartphone all along, even if the user never went to iOS2 or downloaded any apps. Since the iPhone 1 had all the hardware and programming necessary to upgrade the OS and download software, it was, in my eyes, a smartphone.
And I'm saying that an iPhone 5s is a smartphone, even if the user doesn't download anything, and keeps it in "airplane mode" (i.e., software is blocked from downloading anything). And a handgun is a handgun, even if there are no bullets in it, and it's never been fired.
And I'm not alone in this assessment, I guess. Quoting the infamous Wikipedia:
Furthermore, I suppose the iPod touch was a "smartpod".
And I have now reconsidered my LG840G to be a cheap and inexpensive basic smartphone, because it can download java apps. Thank you for the civil debate.
Market share was ALWAYS in context with the top end.
No one here was bragging about market share of the iPhone vs Feature phones in 2008-2012. Basically the $50 smart phone is taking the place of the feature phone.
So are you telling me a $50 phone sale should be treated the same as a $700 phone?
Even though the $50 phone yields $0 profit?
Even though the $50 phone yields $0 profit for app makers?
Even though an iPhone user spends $200+ a year buying Apps/Music/Movies?
Even though an iPhone user had a great chance of buying other Apple products like a Mac?
Hard to take you seriously.
It like comparing Louis Vutton luxury bag sales (Apple) to trash bags ($50 android phone).
When a $200 phone can do pretty much the same thing has a $700 iphone it becomes a problem...I don't see how 600,000,000 itunes accounts with credit card numbers is endangering the entire ecosystem. And growing. They are adding 500,000 users a day.
1 Apple user > 20 Android users who don't buy anything.
I'm sorry I'd rather have 600,000,000 of the riches customers instead of 2 billion customers who can hardly afford a data plan.
imo youre problem is this, this is not true anymore.The iPhone is most definitely a smartphone. Deny it all you want, but you won't change history.
But, amazingly enough, iPhone sales slip during the year, to fall to a low the last quarter before the new models come out.
And also amazingly, they spike for the Christmas shopping quarter.
Looking at the raw numbers and claiming one effect causes it all is a red herring. Apple knows when people shop for new electronics (Q4) so they time their release to maximize that effect. People know that they will release then (your point) but Apple (and all companies) know when people spend less on their products. It's a symbiotic relationship that can't be explained away just because the data fits your PoV.
That's been the case for 7 years yet iPhones are still selling shit tons.
Market share was ALWAYS in context with the top end.
No one here was bragging about market share of the iPhone vs Feature phones in 2008-2012. Basically the $50 smart phone is taking the place of the feature phone.
So are you telling me a $50 phone sale should be treated the same as a $700 phone?
Even though the $50 phone yields $0 profit?
Even though the $50 phone yields $0 profit for app makers?
Even though an iPhone user spends $200+ a year buying Apps/Music/Movies?
Even though an iPhone user had a great chance of buying other Apple products like a Mac?
Hard to take you seriously.
It like comparing Louis Vutton luxury bag sales (Apple) to trash bags ($50 android phone).
When a $200 phone can do pretty much the same thing has a $700 iphone it becomes a problem...
Programmers will go where the money goes. Apple continues to make the environment better for developers to make money where Android does not.
iOS 8 will work all the way back to the 4s, and will probably hit 80-90% saturation on their phones, which makes developers' jobs easier. When you see the stats on how much web traffic there is between iOS and Android (which is the most basic of uses on smartphones) there is no doubt that people who buy more expensive phones do more with their phones.
Putting all your eggs in the market share basket (singular "share" because it is share of the market - just a little help since you are non-native English speaking) is not seeing the forest for the trees.
Yes, market share can be important, but you have to look at the situation as a whole and not just concentrate on the one tree that isn't doing quite as well as the others in the forest.
If both of the above are not enough to inflate the "Android" numbers, there are the non-existent Samsung phone shipments that never happened, AND all the "white box" phones that analysts estimate and add to the android phone mix of which there are no trace of ever being made or sold.
While I understand where you are coming from with that statement, and in some sense you are correct. However, the earlier smart phones I looked at, such as those running the MS OS, were so near-impossible to use (and full of lag) that they were quickly replaced with the iPhone.
I remember having a sense back during the first year that the iPhone was more capable than the leading "smart phones" of the day. I can't remember exactly though, whether it was the 2008 version of the iPhone that really took off, but it does seem that the 2007 iPhone really disrupted the market and to do so it would have had to steal a chunk of the existing "smart phone" market. Not what I'd expect from an expensive "feature phone."
That first year Apple's iPhone was attacked by so many, and accused in so many was of being deficient (too expensive, no real keyboard, etc.) but I don't recall anyone saying it wasn't a "smart phone." When all is said, I may be suffering from selective memory, but that's how I recall those early iPhone days.
Yes, I used the term "interwebs" in a mocking sense, when referring to those unsophisticated users who are generally awkward with their computers.
It immediately reminded me of Newhart in The Big Bang Theory.
"Is, is that an... internet?"
That has little to do with the price of phones. The entire market for smartphones is still growing, and markets where $50, or in reality, mostly $100-300 smartphones are sold will, or are moving up, as in China. It's not impossible by any means.