I have read on some neutral website that the figure, 94% of smartphone profits, are just made up numbers by Apple fansites. I think even BBC reported this which I had read about a month ago. As soon as I read the first line stating 94% of smartphone profit, I couldn't continue anymore. I think this website caters to only those people who just love Apple and hate everything else. For others there are lots of unbiased techsites which gives better reviews and news.
I agree that it's a bold claim.
So where are the reports refuting it?
If it's simply a made-up number... it should be easy to disprove. Are there other smartphone manufacturers making billions in profit that we don't know about?
The funny thing is that in July those numbers were reported 92% in the Wall Street Journal. So, you heard wrong iushnt, wrong wrong wrong; next time take 2 seconds to google.
BTW, that's at the time Samsung launched the S6 where Apple's profit share usually dips. But the S6 sold poorly and this time it didn't. With the launch of the 6s, it's absolutely normal that the numbers would be higher than 92%. Apple's profit share always reaches its peak in the fall.
If the "bbc" (the imaginery BBC seemingly it was wrong) did report this, give me a link or stop lying iushnt.
I have read on some neutral website that the figure, 94% of smartphone profits, are just made up numbers by Apple fansites. I think even BBC reported this which I had read about a month ago. As soon as I read the first line stating 94% of smartphone profit, I couldn't continue anymore. I think this website caters to only those people who just love Apple and hate everything else. For others there are lots of unbiased techsites which gives better reviews and news.
Well, you could have taken 2 seconds to google and find out you were wrong, but noooo; you come here to spout this. Give me a link of desist posting garbage. Me I post this link for the Wall Street Journal, a 92% number in July 2015.
If it's simply a made-up number... it should be easy to disprove. Are there other smartphone manufacturers making billions in profit that we don't know about?
The funny thing is that in July those numbers were reported 92% in the Wall Street Journal. So, you heard wrong iushnt, wrong wrong wrong; next time take 2 seconds to google.
BTW, that's at the time Samsung launched the S6 where Apple's profit share usually dips. But the S6 sold poorly and this time it didn't. With the launch of the 6s, it's absolutely normal that the numbers would be higher than 92%. Apple's profit share always reaches its peak in the fall.
If the "bbc" (the imaginery BBC seemingly it was wrong) did report this, give me a link or stop lying iushnt.
I think you meant to reply to user iushnt instead of me.
But you're right... in July it was reported that Apple had 92% of the smartphone profits. Link
Then 4 months later, in a different quarter, in November, there were articles saying Apple had 94% of the smartphone profits. Link
These reports have been coming out for a couple years now. They said Apple had 80+% of the smartphone profits in 2014... and 70+% in 2013... etc.
I don't know how they get these numbers... but somebody's doing somethin'
If these numbers were completely fake... wouldn't we know by now?
ok, let's try this again. If Google hasn't been found guilty of anything, why would they say they are going to do this because they are violating code, I'll give you the answer, they won't.
They haven't been found guilty, but they will. And that's a pretty big motivation.
Well that really depends doesn't it, I don't believe the case is over, but if they are, they will appeal it, and it will drag on for years, and years
If it's simply a made-up number... it should be easy to disprove. Are there other smartphone manufacturers making billions in profit that we don't know about?
The funny thing is that in July those numbers were reported 92% in the Wall Street Journal. So, you heard wrong iushnt, wrong wrong wrong; next time take 2 seconds to google.
BTW, that's at the time Samsung launched the S6 where Apple's profit share usually dips. But the S6 sold poorly and this time it didn't. With the launch of the 6s, it's absolutely normal that the numbers would be higher than 92%. Apple's profit share always reaches its peak in the fall.
If the "bbc" (the imaginery BBC seemingly it was wrong) did report this, give me a link or stop lying iushnt.
It's actually possible for Apple to make more than 100% of the profits in the smartphone industry. The number itself doesn't mean anything other than Apple is doing very, very well in relation to the competition. If Apple were the only company that turned a profit - and all of its competitors posted a loss, Apple would have over 100% of the profits. Even if Apple only earned $1 - if everyone else lost money or broke even - Apple would have earned well over 100% of the profits (since in this example, the total profits for the entire market would be a negative number!)
Let say Apple earned 100 million dollars in profit last year, Samsung earned 10 million, Microsoft LOST 5 million and all of the other manufacturers combined LOST 20 million dollars. In this example, the total smartphone market profits would be 110+10-5-15= 100 million. That would give Samsung 10% of all of the profit earned in the Samrtphone market and it would give Apple 110% of all of the profit!
Since the % will vary with the magnitude of the losses incurred by your competition - the number itself isn't really a useful metric for determining anything - although it does make for a nice flashy headline!
(I hope I don't need to point out that the numbers used above were completely made-up - chosen to make the math easy to demonstrate the concept. They are not meant to approximate any real world results from any of the companies I mentioned.)
The funny thing is that in July those numbers were reported 92% in the Wall Street Journal. So, you heard wrong iushnt, wrong wrong wrong; next time take 2 seconds to google.
BTW, that's at the time Samsung launched the S6 where Apple's profit share usually dips. But the S6 sold poorly and this time it didn't. With the launch of the 6s, it's absolutely normal that the numbers would be higher than 92%. Apple's profit share always reaches its peak in the fall.
If the "bbc" (the imaginery BBC seemingly it was wrong) did report this, give me a link or stop lying iushnt.
It's actually possible for Apple to make more than 100% of the profits in the smartphone industry. The number itself doesn't mean anything other than Apple is doing very, very well in relation to the competition. If Apple were the only company that turned a profit - and all of its competitors posted a loss, Apple would have over 100% of the profits. Even if Apple only earned $1 - if everyone else lost money or broke even - Apple would have earned well over 100% of the profits (since in this example, the total profits for the entire market would be a negative number!)
Let say Apple earned 100 million dollars in profit last year, Samsung earned 10 million, Microsoft LOST 5 million and all of the other manufacturers combined LOST 20 million dollars. In this example, the total smartphone market profits would be 110+10-5-15= 100 million. That would give Samsung 10% of all of the profit earned in the Samrtphone market and it would give Apple 110% of all of the profit!
Since the % will vary with the magnitude of the losses incurred by your competition - the number itself isn't really a useful metric for determining anything - although it does make for a nice flashy headline!
(I hope I don't need to point out that the numbers used above were completely made-up - chosen to make the math easy to demonstrate the concept. They are not meant to approximate any real world results from any of the companies I mentioned.)
I know that, the industry is a deep hole is what should be surmised from the numbers Even If I gave those numbers a huge margin of error (which I don't think it has or saying 92% instead of 94% would make no sense), say the numbers are 15% too high, Apple is merely making them suffer, if they're 15% (110%) too low they're litterally killing the competition.
If Samsung is down to 5-10% of industry profits, well most of the other company will have to shut down their mobile business.
It's actually possible for Apple to make more than 100% of the profits in the smartphone industry. The number itself doesn't mean anything other than Apple is doing very, very well in relation to the competition. If Apple were the only company that turned a profit - and all of its competitors posted a loss, Apple would have over 100% of the profits. Even if Apple only earned $1 - if everyone else lost money or broke even - Apple would have earned well over 100% of the profits (since in this example, the total profits for the entire market would be a negative number!)
Let say Apple earned 100 million dollars in profit last year, Samsung earned 10 million, Microsoft LOST 5 million and all of the other manufacturers combined LOST 20 million dollars. In this example, the total smartphone market profits would be 110+10-5-15= 100 million. That would give Samsung 10% of all of the profit earned in the Samrtphone market and it would give Apple 110% of all of the profit!
Since the % will vary with the magnitude of the losses incurred by your competition - the number itself isn't really a useful metric for determining anything - although it does make for a nice flashy headline!
(I hope I don't need to point out that the numbers used above were completely made-up - chosen to make the math easy to demonstrate the concept. They are not meant to approximate any real world results from any of the companies I mentioned.)
I know that, the industry is a deep hole is what should be surmised from the numbers Even If I gave those numbers a huge margin of error (which I don't think it has or saying 92% instead of 94% would make no sense), say the numbers are 15% too high, Apple is merely making them suffer, if they're 15% (110%) too low they're litterally killing the competition.
If Samsung is down to 5-10% of industry profits, well most of the other company will have to shut down their mobile business.
Many people will look at the statistic that Apple is already taking 92% or 94% of the profits and think that there no room for growth - so it's important to point out (yet again) that these are percentages of PROFIT - not revenue.
in my previous (fictitious) example, I suggested that Microsoft lost 5 million dollars - so they had a negative profit - but they still collected revenue! It's possible that they only lost 10 cents per phone sold - in which case their 5 million dollar loss actually represented sales of 50 million phones! That would be 50 million people that did not choose an iPhone last year - and potential customers that Apple could steal in the future. The same thing is true for all of the other smartphone manufacturers...they didn't earn any profit - but they did sell phones - and each phone they sold represents a customer that didn't choose an iPhone.
So...a far more meaningful number to look at would be revenue. What percentage of smartphone REVENUE did Apple manage to capture? I guarantee that it's much much lower than 92% - which is great because those numbers will show that there is still a huge opportunity for growth for Apple!
I like this article because it helps illustrate how myopic Wall Street with respect to Apple and its competitors. It’s like the market gets tricked by a bunch of high-tech fantasies and it can’t see the big picture clearly.
Google has only enjoyed one significant source of income, and now, search in the well-moneyed mobile space (i.e., the iPhone) is in a precarious position. We don’t know what Apple is going to do, but the rumors are that Google will no longer be the default search at the end of the year, not to mention the decreasing importance of ad-supported search compared to other discovery technologies. This isn’t exactly an existential threat to Google, but it could seriously hurt their top and bottom line. The market apparently has almost no awareness of this threat.
Similarly, the market is too impressed with Microsoft’s new CEO. They’re expecting magic from this human being. Microsoft is, in a sense, better diversified than Google since it’s done well both with Windows and Office; but Windows today is clearly not what anyone in Redmond wanted. It plays no role in the mobile space and it’s being given away on the desktop. The problem is far bigger than their CEO, but the market wants to believe that Balmer was a bum and Nadella is a savior, but this all smacks of desperation.
Kudos to DED for shining a light on these truths.
Ballmer actually has better insights than Nadella. I think Microsoft made a big mistake, but no one is going to say it right now. So I will. Time will vindicate Ballmer and expose Nadella.
Microsoft should be doubling down on Windows RT and moving over to ARM. Eliminating ARM and doubling down on x86 is a recipe for failure.
Microsoft needs to build the ability into Windows to run Android applications. Even better would be to run iOS applications. To do so properly requires running Windows on ARM, but even an x86 option is better than none. They are focused on trying to make Windows the platform for universal application development. Which isn't going to go anywhere. It won't be too long before Apple releases an ARM powered machine to develop iOS applications as their x86 based hardware will become increasingly less capable with the breakneck pace of development in the ARM arena and mobile GPUs. If developing high end iOS software and games requires an ARM based machine, x86 based Whndows as a development platform is going to go nowhere.
While Android runs on x86 along with most applications, it is certainly not a seamless experience.
Microsoft is now in real trouble by tying themselves to x86 exclusively. As TSMC's manufacturing capability increases and surpasses Intel along with Apple's CPU and GPU design prowess, Intel as the performance champion will come to an end. Such a development which is now in the not too distant future is at hand.
Hence, developing high performance ARM software will require the use of an ARM based machine. Windows on x86 won't be an option for developing iOS based software.
Nadella's approach makes sense if Intel will be able to maintain their performance lead over ARM. Intel won't be able to. Apple, TSMC and Samsung are all moving faster than Intel. Nevermind AMD, Nvidia and Apple itself in GPUs.
Ballmer was right and Nadella is wrong. The future of computing will be based on ARM with x86 to be displaced.
Google started Apple's thermonuclear campaign. Unfortunately for Intel, they are going to be casualties in the process.
As Apple becomes the primary software development platform with the best performing machines and devices, Intel, Microsoft and Google are all going to become casualties. I actually feel somewhat badly for Intel, but they did this to themselves.
Jobs really wanted to partner up with them. Otellini turned him down for the iPhone CPU and Intel had a lot of trouble even building proprietary x86 CPUs for Apple alone. Apple went elsewhere and Intel is now left completely out of the party because they could not and would not see beyond commodity processors.
Intel would like to see Google's Android OS to win out over iOS in the same way Windows won out over the Macintosh. Apple learned from its initial mistakes. It's not going to happen a second time. Hence Jobs' willingness to go thermonuclear. It means Apple keeps the pedal to the floor and relentlessly develops technology at a faster pace than the rest of the market.
The writing is now on the wall. Apple wins out against both Windows and Android. x86 CPUs will be relegated to niche status and ARM becomes the defacto standard for state of the art CPUs.
As Ballmer said, the only company that can mount any challenge to Apple is Microsoft. But Nadella's vision will fail. Ballmer had the correct vision even if he wasn't able to communicate it eloquently. Surface pro and Surface Book machines are going to become casualties of the iPad. Once Apple puts the A9X into an iPad Air, the entire laptop and tablet market is in very serious trouble. The Windows phone is already dead in the water.
Microsoft does have the Xbox for now. That is, until the A9X goes into the next version of the Apple TV.
Apple's dominance is set to grow inexorably stronger. Intel, Microsoft and Google shareholders would be wise to dump their shares. TSMC, ARMH, Apple will become dominant and potentially Samsung if they drop their portable device lines and focus on components manufacturing, becoming a preferred Apple supplier for displays, memory and even SOCs.
For Intel to survive, they need to purchase an ARM license pronto and convince Apple to build the A10/A10X on their fabs. If TSMC gets to 10 nm before Intel does, it will be a lost cause. Intel's 14 nm process is supposedly superior to TSMC's 16 mm process if they can fix their yield problems. Microsoft needs to double down on ARM, even building machines with an ARM SOC running in tandem with an x86 CPU on Windows. Google is a lost cause. There is nothing they can do as Apple destroys their ad based model.
Microsoft of the three companies has the best chance. And if I were Nadella, I would build an Android runtime environment into Windows, even if it requires placing an ARM SOC on the motherboard of the surface machines. I would use the platform to gradually move Windows off x86 and over to ARM. I would encourage the developers to develop software that runs identically in x86 and ARM, utilizing the ARM core preferentially to save power. Once the majority of Windows applications have been updated to run on ARM, I would have an exclusive ARM based machine ready to go. I would also be working closely with Samsung and Global foundries in building an ARM CPU that's at least competitive with Apple's high end offerings. Even if it means subsidizing the cost of development. Going so far as to placing an Exynos 74xx series CPU on the motherboard of a Surface machine.
The "Window" of opportunity is rapidly shrinking for Microsoft. And Nadella is doing a poor job of actually looking to compete with Apple over the long term.
I looked at the Surface pro line. Mostly core i5 and i7 CPUs with vastly inferior battery life compared to the iPad pro. And that iPad pro CPU will be going into the next generation iPad Air and potentially the Apple TV. Think about what that means! An iPad Air is going to outperform the MacBook with core M. Better performance and battery life at the same time. And the A10/A10X are coming along with the S2 for the watch.
It's clear past decisions have allowed Apple to maximize their revenue and profits. They are a highly efficient company that makes a very large amount of money in the market.
As an investor, i'd probably be less fixated on that however. The current stock price already reflects these realities, and has already rewarded those who had the foresight to invest years ago. [...] Apple still hasn't convinced the market their company is worth more than it is right now, and I agree.
The present stock price assumes Apple will be dead in a year or two, which seems pretty bizarre to me. Ex-cash, Wall Street values the company at less than twice its yearly revenue. I think Wall Street is innumerate and the law of large numbers that actually applies is: we can't understand large numbers! Forget the hundreds of billions of hardware revenue; someone says, "the Apple Music launch was disappointing" and the stock crashes. Or consider Apple vs Amazon. Amazon is revered for its complete dominance in retail. Apple's revenue from retail, selling mostly its own stuff, was twice as large as Amazon's last year! Apple's lead in smartphone profits is rapidly increasing, to the point that it now earns 94% of all the profits, and still has triple digit growth in the biggest emerging markets. Despite something like a 30% increase in year-over-year profits, Apple's stock was net down from beginning to end of 2015, and then crashed early this year. And no matter how low it gets, the "wise" heads say that everything good about the company is already baked into the stock price, and then ignore the stickiness and incredible growth of the current products and say Apple's only chance to avoid immediate doom is to find another iPhone scale product! BS.
Comments
http://www.wsj.com/articles/apples-share-of-smartphone-industrys-profits-soars-to-92-1436727458
BTW, that's at the time Samsung launched the S6 where Apple's profit share usually dips. But the S6 sold poorly and this time it didn't.
With the launch of the 6s, it's absolutely normal that the numbers would be higher than 92%.
Apple's profit share always reaches its peak in the fall.
If the "bbc" (the imaginery BBC seemingly it was wrong) did report this, give me a link or stop lying iushnt.
Give me a link of desist posting garbage.
Me I post this link for the Wall Street Journal, a 92% number in July 2015.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/apples-share-of-smartphone-industrys-profits-soars-to-92-1436727458
But you're right... in July it was reported that Apple had 92% of the smartphone profits. Link
Then 4 months later, in a different quarter, in November, there were articles saying Apple had 94% of the smartphone profits. Link
These reports have been coming out for a couple years now. They said Apple had 80+% of the smartphone profits in 2014... and 70+% in 2013... etc.
I don't know how they get these numbers... but somebody's doing somethin'
If these numbers were completely fake... wouldn't we know by now?
Let say Apple earned 100 million dollars in profit last year, Samsung earned 10 million, Microsoft LOST 5 million and all of the other manufacturers combined LOST 20 million dollars. In this example, the total smartphone market profits would be 110+10-5-15= 100 million. That would give Samsung 10% of all of the profit earned in the Samrtphone market and it would give Apple 110% of all of the profit!
Since the % will vary with the magnitude of the losses incurred by your competition - the number itself isn't really a useful metric for determining anything - although it does make for a nice flashy headline!
(I hope I don't need to point out that the numbers used above were completely made-up - chosen to make the math easy to demonstrate the concept. They are not meant to approximate any real world results from any of the companies I mentioned.)
Even If I gave those numbers a huge margin of error (which I don't think it has or saying 92% instead of 94% would make no sense), say the numbers are 15% too high, Apple is merely making them suffer, if they're 15% (110%) too low they're litterally killing the competition.
If Samsung is down to 5-10% of industry profits, well most of the other company will have to shut down their mobile business.
in my previous (fictitious) example, I suggested that Microsoft lost 5 million dollars - so they had a negative profit - but they still collected revenue! It's possible that they only lost 10 cents per phone sold - in which case their 5 million dollar loss actually represented sales of 50 million phones! That would be 50 million people that did not choose an iPhone last year - and potential customers that Apple could steal in the future. The same thing is true for all of the other smartphone manufacturers...they didn't earn any profit - but they did sell phones - and each phone they sold represents a customer that didn't choose an iPhone.
So...a far more meaningful number to look at would be revenue. What percentage of smartphone REVENUE did Apple manage to capture? I guarantee that it's much much lower than 92% - which is great because those numbers will show that there is still a huge opportunity for growth for Apple!
Microsoft should be doubling down on Windows RT and moving over to ARM. Eliminating ARM and doubling down on x86 is a recipe for failure.
Microsoft needs to build the ability into Windows to run Android applications. Even better would be to run iOS applications. To do so properly requires running Windows on ARM, but even an x86 option is better than none. They are focused on trying to make Windows the platform for universal application development. Which isn't going to go anywhere. It won't be too long before Apple releases an ARM powered machine to develop iOS applications as their x86 based hardware will become increasingly less capable with the breakneck pace of development in the ARM arena and mobile GPUs. If developing high end iOS software and games requires an ARM based machine, x86 based Whndows as a development platform is going to go nowhere.
While Android runs on x86 along with most applications, it is certainly not a seamless experience.
Microsoft is now in real trouble by tying themselves to x86 exclusively. As TSMC's manufacturing capability increases and surpasses Intel along with Apple's CPU and GPU design prowess, Intel as the performance champion will come to an end. Such a development which is now in the not too distant future is at hand.
Hence, developing high performance ARM software will require the use of an ARM based machine. Windows on x86 won't be an option for developing iOS based software.
Nadella's approach makes sense if Intel will be able to maintain their performance lead over ARM. Intel won't be able to. Apple, TSMC and Samsung are all moving faster than Intel. Nevermind AMD, Nvidia and Apple itself in GPUs.
Ballmer was right and Nadella is wrong. The future of computing will be based on ARM with x86 to be displaced.
Google started Apple's thermonuclear campaign. Unfortunately for Intel, they are going to be casualties in the process.
As Apple becomes the primary software development platform with the best performing machines and devices, Intel, Microsoft and Google are all going to become casualties. I actually feel somewhat badly for Intel, but they did this to themselves.
Jobs really wanted to partner up with them. Otellini turned him down for the iPhone CPU and Intel had a lot of trouble even building proprietary x86 CPUs for Apple alone. Apple went elsewhere and Intel is now left completely out of the party because they could not and would not see beyond commodity processors.
Intel would like to see Google's Android OS to win out over iOS in the same way Windows won out over the Macintosh. Apple learned from its initial mistakes. It's not going to happen a second time. Hence Jobs' willingness to go thermonuclear. It means Apple keeps the pedal to the floor and relentlessly develops technology at a faster pace than the rest of the market.
The writing is now on the wall. Apple wins out against both Windows and Android. x86 CPUs will be relegated to niche status and ARM becomes the defacto standard for state of the art CPUs.
As Ballmer said, the only company that can mount any challenge to Apple is Microsoft. But Nadella's vision will fail. Ballmer had the correct vision even if he wasn't able to communicate it eloquently. Surface pro and Surface Book machines are going to become casualties of the iPad. Once Apple puts the A9X into an iPad Air, the entire laptop and tablet market is in very serious trouble. The Windows phone is already dead in the water.
Microsoft does have the Xbox for now. That is, until the A9X goes into the next version of the Apple TV.
Apple's dominance is set to grow inexorably stronger. Intel, Microsoft and Google shareholders would be wise to dump their shares. TSMC, ARMH, Apple will become dominant and potentially Samsung if they drop their portable device lines and focus on components manufacturing, becoming a preferred Apple supplier for displays, memory and even SOCs.
For Intel to survive, they need to purchase an ARM license pronto and convince Apple to build the A10/A10X on their fabs. If TSMC gets to 10 nm before Intel does, it will be a lost cause. Intel's 14 nm process is supposedly superior to TSMC's 16 mm process if they can fix their yield problems. Microsoft needs to double down on ARM, even building machines with an ARM SOC running in tandem with an x86 CPU on Windows. Google is a lost cause. There is nothing they can do as Apple destroys their ad based model.
Microsoft of the three companies has the best chance. And if I were Nadella, I would build an Android runtime environment into Windows, even if it requires placing an ARM SOC on the motherboard of the surface machines. I would use the platform to gradually move Windows off x86 and over to ARM. I would encourage the developers to develop software that runs identically in x86 and ARM, utilizing the ARM core preferentially to save power. Once the majority of Windows applications have been updated to run on ARM, I would have an exclusive ARM based machine ready to go. I would also be working closely with Samsung and Global foundries in building an ARM CPU that's at least competitive with Apple's high end offerings. Even if it means subsidizing the cost of development. Going so far as to placing an Exynos 74xx series CPU on the motherboard of a Surface machine.
The "Window" of opportunity is rapidly shrinking for Microsoft. And Nadella is doing a poor job of actually looking to compete with Apple over the long term.
I looked at the Surface pro line. Mostly core i5 and i7 CPUs with vastly inferior battery life compared to the iPad pro. And that iPad pro CPU will be going into the next generation iPad Air and potentially the Apple TV. Think about what that means! An iPad Air is going to outperform the MacBook with core M. Better performance and battery life at the same time. And the A10/A10X are coming along with the S2 for the watch.
It's looking very bad for Apple's competitors.