Apple's iPhone falls from 3rd to 5th in China smartphone marketshare

Posted:
in iPhone edited July 2016
In the battle for the Chinese smartphone market, Apple has lost ground in both marketshare and shipment quantities to smartphone manufacturers Vivo and Oppo, new data reveals.




The study, generated by Strategy Analytics, claims that vendor shipments by Apple dropped from 9.7 million to 7.3 million from the second quarter of 2015 to the second quarter of 2016. The drop in sales because of mixed demand for the iPhone 6s in the Chinese arena led to a decrease in overall marketshare from 9.2 percent in the year-ago quarter to 6.7 percent currently.

The gains realized by China-native Vivo and Oppo are credited to improvements in device quality, greater retailer penetration, and rising brand awareness among consumers. In the same time period as Apple's decline, Vivo rose from 7.4 percent of the overall marketshare, to 11.9 percent. Oppo climbed from 6.9 percent to 13.9 percent.




In a year with the China smartphone shipments growing 3.7 percent, the country remains the world's largest market for the devices. China accounts for one in three smartphone shipments worldwide, according to Strategy Analytics.

In the latest set of Apple quarterly results, revenue from Greater China came in at $8.85 billion, a decrease of 33 percent from the same quarter last year. Revenue decreased both from the decrease in sales in the quarter, as well as the depreciation of the Chinese yuan against the dollar.

"In the first three quarters of this fiscal year, our total revenue from Greater China was almost $40 billion," Apple CEO Tim Cook said, regarding the Chinese marketplace. Cook noted that revenue was "up 55 percent from the same time frame just two years ago, while iPhone units were up 47 percent."

Comments

  • Reply 2 of 17
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,471member
    Sell, sell, SELL! I tell you. Damnation and the Apocalypse await those who still believe! Sinners repent! Buy AMZN! 
    edited July 2016 ration al
  • Reply 3 of 17
    baconstangbaconstang Posts: 783member
    Not too surprising.   How about 'profit share'?
    planetary paulh2panantksundaram
  • Reply 4 of 17
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member
    NY1822 said:
    I've seen a number of carrier BOGO promotions for iPhone. Apple and Samsung launch phones at different times of the year. It's not surprising to me that one would overtake the other right after the launch a new phone.
    singularitylatifbpgoodbyeranchdasanman69
  • Reply 5 of 17
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,297member

    Not too surprising.   How about 'profit share'?
    https://www.engadget.com/2016/07/27/samsung-second-quarter-earnings/
    Samsung's operating profits really did reach 8.14 trillion won ($7.2) like it expected, marking the second quarter of 2016 as its strongest in two years. The Korean corporation has released its detailed earnings report for Q2, where it also revealed a 50.94 trillion KRW ($45 billion) revenue, up by 2.40 trillion from same period last year. Samsung credits its increase in earnings to the strong sales of both the Samsung S7 and S7 edge, as well as to its profitable mid- to low-end models, including the Galaxy A and J series.
    singularitycnocbuidasanman69
  • Reply 6 of 17
    cincyteecincytee Posts: 344member
    If you add the knock-offs that buyers thought were genuine iPhones, how would Apple rank?
    ration alnolamacguy
  • Reply 7 of 17
    sog35 said:
    In related news Glad Trash Bags have a 90% market share in the bags market.
    Louis Vutton share shrunk to only 5%
    I hate when people make these comparisons.

    First of all, a bag is an accessory used to carry your stuff from one place to the next. Buying a Louis Vutton bag is an excercise of spending unnecessary amount of money to carry your stuff. The only reason people spend the money is to stand out from other folks, and they're rich. No other reason

    iPhone is a comms tool used to manage most things in your life, as well as staying connected to the world. It's a unique device, with a unique operating system, with sometimes unique apps, and with unique security. Nobody stands out by owning an iPhone because pretty much everyone I know has an iPhone, and they're not rich.

    Android is a comms tool used to manage most things in your life also. It's not unique in that many different companies have access to the operating system. Some companies choose to tweak it to make unique apps for it, but overall it's still Android. It lacks security and privacy, however apps can access the OS in a different manner and it allows some apps to do more with the phone.

    The only reason someone might think iPhone is for higher class people is the perceived value of the Apple brand, and that's all phsycology and frankly kinda stupid. If you see someone with a shitty Android phone, you might think he's poor, and that might be true, but if you saw someone with an iPhone 4, or iPhone 3GS, would you think he's rich? No, makes no sense.

    If someone carried around a Louis Vutton bag from 5 years ago, they would still be looked at as being wealthy because it's still a Louis Vutton bag. That's not the case with an iPhone. Old technology is old technology. It's useless except for 50 years from now when a collector wants it.

    Let's stop turning technology into fashion. It's not an accessory, it's a tool for enhancing your life. Ever heard of a Louis Vutton hammer?
    cnocbuibaconstang
  • Reply 8 of 17
    yojimbo007yojimbo007 Posts: 1,144member

    Not too surprising.   How about 'profit share'?
    https://www.engadget.com/2016/07/27/samsung-second-quarter-earnings/
    Samsung's operating profits really did reach 8.14 trillion won ($7.2) like it expected, marking the second quarter of 2016 as its strongest in two years. The Korean corporation has released its detailed earnings report for Q2, where it also revealed a 50.94 trillion KRW ($45 billion) revenue, up by 2.40 trillion from same period last year. Samsung credits its increase in earnings to the strong sales of both the Samsung S7 and S7 edge, as well as to its profitable mid- to low-end models, including the Galaxy A and J series.
    You posted the wrong portion of the article .. Read the article again all the way to the last paragraph. ..
  • Reply 9 of 17
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,225member

    Not too surprising.   How about 'profit share'?
    https://www.engadget.com/2016/07/27/samsung-second-quarter-earnings/
    Samsung's operating profits really did reach 8.14 trillion won ($7.2) like it expected, marking the second quarter of 2016 as its strongest in two years. The Korean corporation has released its detailed earnings report for Q2, where it also revealed a 50.94 trillion KRW ($45 billion) revenue, up by 2.40 trillion from same period last year. Samsung credits its increase in earnings to the strong sales of both the Samsung S7 and S7 edge, as well as to its profitable mid- to low-end models, including the Galaxy A and J series.
    That's for all of Samsung Electronics, which is IT + CE + Mobile + Equipment + Components + Who Know Whatever Else. The fact that they say it's because of their smartphones is not something I necessarily believe, given their past proneness to lying through their teeth.
    ration albaconstang
  • Reply 10 of 17
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,174member

    Not too surprising.   How about 'profit share'?
    https://www.engadget.com/2016/07/27/samsung-second-quarter-earnings/
    Samsung's operating profits really did reach 8.14 trillion won ($7.2) like it expected, marking the second quarter of 2016 as its strongest in two years. The Korean corporation has released its detailed earnings report for Q2, where it also revealed a 50.94 trillion KRW ($45 billion) revenue, up by 2.40 trillion from same period last year. Samsung credits its increase in earnings to the strong sales of both the Samsung S7 and S7 edge, as well as to its profitable mid- to low-end models, including the Galaxy A and J series.
    That's for all of Samsung Electronics, which is IT + CE + Mobile + Equipment + Components + Who Know Whatever Else. The fact that they say it's because of their smartphones is not something I necessarily believe, given their past proneness to lying through their teeth.
    Approx $3.8B of that was attributed to their mobile devices. It's in the press release. 
    ration al
  • Reply 11 of 17
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,174member
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    That's for all of Samsung Electronics, which is IT + CE + Mobile + Equipment + Components + Who Know Whatever Else. The fact that they say it's because of their smartphones is not something I necessarily believe, given their past proneness to lying through their teeth.
    Approx $3.8B of that was attributed to their mobile devices. It's in the press release. 


    That's operating profit only. Not net profit - it does not include taxes and other admin costs
    Wasn't that already stated? Why yes it was. Rogifan New reiterated that too. Anant was curious about the amount attributed to mobile out of that total $7.2B
  • Reply 12 of 17
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,174member
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    Wasn't that already stated? Why yes it was. Rogifan New reiterated that too. Anant was curious about the amount attributed to mobile out of that total $7.2B
    but that $7.2B is not PROFIT.  That is profit before taxes and other admin costs. Very misleading. Because when we talk Apple profits it is always NET PROFITS after taxes
    Where did you read Samsung saying it was simply "profit"? In fact who in this thread did? As far as I saw everyone properly used the term "Operating Profit". I've not ever considered "Operating Profit" to be misleading. On the other hand stating "Taxes" can be. Oft-times they are never actually PAID, it's simply an allowance for them if certain scenarios were to occur. That's a different conversation tho. 
    edited July 2016
  • Reply 13 of 17
    ksecksec Posts: 1,567member
    Some people believe China is on the verge to collapse ( Or at least in a slow pace to death ), and you would expect people are saving money.
    Or China is still very healthy, therefore its so called Middleclass is growing, and hence Apple potential marketshare is bigger.

    While I have always said Xiaomi is quite fearful. The biggest competition here isn't Xiaomi or Samsung. It is Huawei. Arguably, Samsung dont understand Software and Design. But they have great Hardware ( Internal ) and quick to copy. With the HUGE financial backing from Samsung, ( Not Samsung Electronics, but Samsung as a whole, which is close to Apple's market Cap scale )
    Xiaomi's founder started out with Software. Kingsoft is one of the best pieces of alternative Office out there. They had combined their Software, design ( Copying ), iteration along with Shenzhen Hardware ecosystem. But Xiaomi dont have much financial backing, and they dont have patents, hence I dont expect them to get the same low price in US and EU when they actually have to play a fair game.

    Huawei, on the other hand, is like the new Nokia. Huawei is now winning over many telecom infrastructure project. Beating Ercisson, Nokia -Alcatel,  Samsung is relatively small compared to the three. And Nokia is actually Nokia + Simens + Alcatel combined.
    They also have huge amount of money with very decent inflow of cash, decent R&D, and since they are in the Telecomm business they do own a lot of patents. Huawei is also, arguably slightly better then Samsung in Software and Design.
    But the most important thing is, Huawei have access to both International AND Chinese market. Therefore much better equip to scale then Samsung.

    Arguably, Apple beat Samsung, then they also beat Xiaomi, now there is Huawei. Each one being more competitive then the one before. 
  • Reply 14 of 17
    sog35 said:
    I hate when people make these comparisons.

    First of all, a bag is an accessory used to carry your stuff from one place to the next. Buying a Louis Vutton bag is an excercise of spending unnecessary amount of money to carry your stuff. The only reason people spend the money is to stand out from other folks, and they're rich. No other reason

    iPhone is a comms tool used to manage most things in your life, as well as staying connected to the world. It's a unique device, with a unique operating system, with sometimes unique apps, and with unique security. Nobody stands out by owning an iPhone because pretty much everyone I know has an iPhone, and they're not rich.

    Android is a comms tool used to manage most things in your life also. It's not unique in that many different companies have access to the operating system. Some companies choose to tweak it to make unique apps for it, but overall it's still Android. It lacks security and privacy, however apps can access the OS in a different manner and it allows some apps to do more with the phone.

    The only reason someone might think iPhone is for higher class people is the perceived value of the Apple brand, and that's all phsycology and frankly kinda stupid. If you see someone with a shitty Android phone, you might think he's poor, and that might be true, but if you saw someone with an iPhone 4, or iPhone 3GS, would you think he's rich? No, makes no sense.

    If someone carried around a Louis Vutton bag from 5 years ago, they would still be looked at as being wealthy because it's still a Louis Vutton bag. That's not the case with an iPhone. Old technology is old technology. It's useless except for 50 years from now when a collector wants it.

    Let's stop turning technology into fashion. It's not an accessory, it's a tool for enhancing your life. Ever heard of a Louis Vutton hammer?
    In related news Hyundai reports 30% market share.
    BMW reports only 20%.  BMW doomed.
    Closer, more appropriate example. However if we use other industries and companies to compare Apple to, then BMW isn't the one since it's profit margin is a mere 8 or so. A better comparison would be Ford, and it's still only 14 or so, which is pretty good to be fair. 

    The real comparison is with Brilliance Auto. Cars made in China that are so high quality that they have a 50%+ profit margin. 

    Look at that beautiful BMW knockoff. 

    Look Apple is profitable and successful because it has run it's business effectively and efficiently. It chooses it's parts carefully and gets great bargains by buying in huge volumes

    Not only that but they've managed to eliminate a lot of waste by taking unused parts and fitting them into "newer" models (iPhone SE) and essentially selling an old product as new, with just slight tweaks here and there.

    I have a 6S, and I'm not middle class. I'm working class. This phone didn't make me feel rich when all my co-workers have the same phone and they're broke too. 

    If you wanna compare Apple to an accessory it's not Louis Vuitton. It's Jordan Sneakers. Everyone buying expensive Sneakers and can't pay the rent




  • Reply 15 of 17
    brakkenbrakken Posts: 687member
    sog35 said:
    I hate when people make these comparisons.

    First of all, a bag is an accessory used to carry your stuff from one place to the next. Buying a Louis Vutton bag is an excercise of spending unnecessary amount of money to carry your stuff.
    In related news Hyundai reports 30% market share.
    BMW reports only 20%.  BMW doomed.
    News flash just in: Total English speakers worldwide up to 25%, but only 3% know what a 'Glad Bag' is!
    Humanity doomed.
  • Reply 16 of 17
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    sog35 said:
    In related news Hyundai reports 30% market share.
    BMW reports only 20%.  BMW doomed.
    Closer, more appropriate example. However if we use other industries and companies to compare Apple to, then BMW isn't the one since it's profit margin is a mere 8 or so. A better comparison would be Ford, and it's still only 14 or so, which is pretty good to be fair. 

    The real comparison is with Brilliance Auto. Cars made in China that are so high quality that they have a 50%+ profit margin. 

    Look at that beautiful BMW knockoff. 

    Look Apple is profitable and successful because it has run it's business effectively and efficiently. It chooses it's parts carefully and gets great bargains by buying in huge volumes

    Not only that but they've managed to eliminate a lot of waste by taking unused parts and fitting them into "newer" models (iPhone SE) and essentially selling an old product as new, with just slight tweaks here and there.

    I have a 6S, and I'm not middle class. I'm working class. This phone didn't make me feel rich when all my co-workers have the same phone and they're broke too. 

    If you wanna compare Apple to an accessory it's not Louis Vuitton. It's Jordan Sneakers. Everyone buying expensive Sneakers and can't pay the rent
    the type of product iPhone is in is called "affordable luxury". it's high end for its category, but not cost prohibitive, many can afford it. 
    edited July 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.