Sloppy report depicts Apple as struggling with LG as an alternative to Samsung OLEDs on ne...

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 41
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,549member
    avon b7 said:
    Nice chart. All it shows is that the iPhone X is the highest selling iPhone. LOL There are 10 devices listed on that list, of them, 8 are iPhones. The other two are Samsungs. Does DED know that there are a ton of different manufacturers that produce Android devices? Apparently not. Amazon, LG, Huawei, HTC, Google, Motorola, Essential, Sony, Lenovo... all of these phones run Android. This is a poorly written and grossly biased native advertising piece for Apple. Apple has like no market share.
    Hilariously, you don't even realize why what you said is absurd. I know you're a troll, but the chart depicts profit-share. That it's dominated by iPhones is, in fact, the entire reason that it's notable.

    Apple has a minority market share, yet they eat up the majority of the profits -- all your knockoff vendors make jack squat. Sorry, bub, but profit is the air corporations breath, not market share. Market share is what fandroids chant because their offshore heroes aren't make any actual money. Flavors of the week.

    Pretty poor showing for your first post.
    Is one quarter representative of anything save that quarter?

    Can someone dig out a chart of the same information over the two years prior to that quarter?

    I had heard that Apple was on a downward slide and had hit 60%. Was there any evidence to support that because from over 100% down to 60% seems like quite a slide.

    I'd much rather see the trend (whichever way it pointed) than a cherry-picked Christmas quarter that had a third and most expensive Apple phone ever, pent-up demand and a potential super-cycle attached to it.
    Wait, are you assuming that the previous article about how much profit share they're taking in is also using that odd, quasi-accounting method to note all the vendors that are losing money? Based on the article, it would seem that all those thousands of Android-based vendors are breaking even, which I doubt is the case, so I don't think you can make any comparison. In fact, I'd just go ahead and forget about all those articles that made those claims of Apple getting over 100% of the retail profits.
  • Reply 22 of 41
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,313member
    Soli said:
    avon b7 said:
    Nice chart. All it shows is that the iPhone X is the highest selling iPhone. LOL There are 10 devices listed on that list, of them, 8 are iPhones. The other two are Samsungs. Does DED know that there are a ton of different manufacturers that produce Android devices? Apparently not. Amazon, LG, Huawei, HTC, Google, Motorola, Essential, Sony, Lenovo... all of these phones run Android. This is a poorly written and grossly biased native advertising piece for Apple. Apple has like no market share.
    Hilariously, you don't even realize why what you said is absurd. I know you're a troll, but the chart depicts profit-share. That it's dominated by iPhones is, in fact, the entire reason that it's notable.

    Apple has a minority market share, yet they eat up the majority of the profits -- all your knockoff vendors make jack squat. Sorry, bub, but profit is the air corporations breath, not market share. Market share is what fandroids chant because their offshore heroes aren't make any actual money. Flavors of the week.

    Pretty poor showing for your first post.
    Is one quarter representative of anything save that quarter?

    Can someone dig out a chart of the same information over the two years prior to that quarter?

    I had heard that Apple was on a downward slide and had hit 60%. Was there any evidence to support that because from over 100% down to 60% seems like quite a slide.

    I'd much rather see the trend (whichever way it pointed) than a cherry-picked Christmas quarter that had a third and most expensive Apple phone ever, pent-up demand and a potential super-cycle attached to it.
    Wait, are you assuming that the previous article about how much profit share they're taking in is also using that odd, quasi-accounting method to note all the vendors that are losing money? Based on the article, it would seem that all those thousands of Android-based vendors are breaking even, which I doubt is the case, so I don't think you can make any comparison. In fact, I'd just go ahead and forget about all those articles that made those claims of Apple getting over 100% of the retail profits.
    Ah yes, I know, but so many people band that one about so I thought I'd throw it in.

    I'm firmly in the group that says if my phone manufacturing company makes phones to return a profit and I'm making money, then I'm happy, no matter what Apple is doing. Especially if I'm turning a profit with my low end phones.

    I just find it unreasonable to spout this 'but Apple makes all the money' (especially when such a lot of it ends up sitting in a bank for years). If it were their money I would understand it but it isn't.

    Others are in fact investing more in R&D than Apple, making money (millions at that) arguably producing better phones and at more competitive prices and selling lots of them. I'm glad that competition exists and that some are prepared to sacrifice some of their margins into the bargain.

    That's not to begrudge the situation. If someone really thinks the price is right for an iPhone, then great, but saying Apple has all the profits or most of them is a throwaway line at best.






    edited April 2018 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 23 of 41
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 1,647member
    avon b7 said:
    Soli said:
    avon b7 said:
    Nice chart. All it shows is that the iPhone X is the highest selling iPhone. LOL There are 10 devices listed on that list, of them, 8 are iPhones. The other two are Samsungs. Does DED know that there are a ton of different manufacturers that produce Android devices? Apparently not. Amazon, LG, Huawei, HTC, Google, Motorola, Essential, Sony, Lenovo... all of these phones run Android. This is a poorly written and grossly biased native advertising piece for Apple. Apple has like no market share.
    Hilariously, you don't even realize why what you said is absurd. I know you're a troll, but the chart depicts profit-share. That it's dominated by iPhones is, in fact, the entire reason that it's notable.

    Apple has a minority market share, yet they eat up the majority of the profits -- all your knockoff vendors make jack squat. Sorry, bub, but profit is the air corporations breath, not market share. Market share is what fandroids chant because their offshore heroes aren't make any actual money. Flavors of the week.

    Pretty poor showing for your first post.
    Is one quarter representative of anything save that quarter?

    Can someone dig out a chart of the same information over the two years prior to that quarter?

    I had heard that Apple was on a downward slide and had hit 60%. Was there any evidence to support that because from over 100% down to 60% seems like quite a slide.

    I'd much rather see the trend (whichever way it pointed) than a cherry-picked Christmas quarter that had a third and most expensive Apple phone ever, pent-up demand and a potential super-cycle attached to it.
    Wait, are you assuming that the previous article about how much profit share they're taking in is also using that odd, quasi-accounting method to note all the vendors that are losing money? Based on the article, it would seem that all those thousands of Android-based vendors are breaking even, which I doubt is the case, so I don't think you can make any comparison. In fact, I'd just go ahead and forget about all those articles that made those claims of Apple getting over 100% of the retail profits.
    Ah yes, I know, but so many people band that one about so I thought I'd throw it in.

    I'm firmly in the group that says if my phone manufacturing company makes phones to return a profit and I'm making money, then I'm happy, no matter what Apple is doing. Especially if I'm turning a profit with my low end phones.

    I just find it unreasonable to spout this 'but Apple makes all the money' (especially when such a lot of it ends up sitting in a bank for years). If it were their money I would understand it but it isn't.

    Others are in fact investing more in R&D than Apple, making money (millions at that) arguably producing better phones and at more competitive prices and selling lots of them. I'm glad that competition exists and that some are prepared to sacrifice some of their margins into the bargain.

    That's not to begrudge the situation. If someone really thinks the price is right for an iPhone, then great, but saying Apple has all the profits or most of them is a throwaway line at best.






    Could you list 2 -3 phone manufacturers and how much they made and why you think they are better?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 41
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,549member
    avon b7 said:
    Soli said:
    avon b7 said:
    Nice chart. All it shows is that the iPhone X is the highest selling iPhone. LOL There are 10 devices listed on that list, of them, 8 are iPhones. The other two are Samsungs. Does DED know that there are a ton of different manufacturers that produce Android devices? Apparently not. Amazon, LG, Huawei, HTC, Google, Motorola, Essential, Sony, Lenovo... all of these phones run Android. This is a poorly written and grossly biased native advertising piece for Apple. Apple has like no market share.
    Hilariously, you don't even realize why what you said is absurd. I know you're a troll, but the chart depicts profit-share. That it's dominated by iPhones is, in fact, the entire reason that it's notable.

    Apple has a minority market share, yet they eat up the majority of the profits -- all your knockoff vendors make jack squat. Sorry, bub, but profit is the air corporations breath, not market share. Market share is what fandroids chant because their offshore heroes aren't make any actual money. Flavors of the week.

    Pretty poor showing for your first post.
    Is one quarter representative of anything save that quarter?

    Can someone dig out a chart of the same information over the two years prior to that quarter?

    I had heard that Apple was on a downward slide and had hit 60%. Was there any evidence to support that because from over 100% down to 60% seems like quite a slide.

    I'd much rather see the trend (whichever way it pointed) than a cherry-picked Christmas quarter that had a third and most expensive Apple phone ever, pent-up demand and a potential super-cycle attached to it.
    Wait, are you assuming that the previous article about how much profit share they're taking in is also using that odd, quasi-accounting method to note all the vendors that are losing money? Based on the article, it would seem that all those thousands of Android-based vendors are breaking even, which I doubt is the case, so I don't think you can make any comparison. In fact, I'd just go ahead and forget about all those articles that made those claims of Apple getting over 100% of the retail profits.
    If it were their money I would understand it but it isn't.
    For many Apple fans, it sorta is in the way of stock, even though we can look at Apple and Amazon to see that profits apparently mean nothing in terms of company confidence and future growth.

    Others are in fact investing more in R&D than Apple, making money (millions at that) arguably producing better phones and at more competitive prices and selling lots of them. I'm glad that competition exists and that some are prepared to sacrifice some of their margins into the bargain.

    Apple has a tradition with internet-based pundits and analysts that start off something like "no one wants this feature" to "too it's too expensive for the market" all with the typical remakes that Apple is doomed to fail. These typically end up with the industry playing catchup with the many years of R&D Apple puts into products with the eventual "it was all an obvious next step" and "Apple didn't really do anything that wasn't going to happen anyway."

    From economies of scale for the sheer volume of a given model to the efficiencies and consumer interest all allow Apple to be profitable. That's impressive and useful information. I don't want to buy some cheap Android-based device that has no incentive to keep me protected and is very open to having crapware (or worse) pre-installed as a way of turning a profit or reducing a loss (as we've seen for decades without with the WinPC market).

    Unlike other industries, Apple has done this despite being very late to a seemingly established market and not being a monopoly.

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 41

    Carli said:
    Good article. The aspect missing, though is that Apple consistently charges ridiculous premiums for its phones. Recognizing that they have right to do that as long as customers pay for it, is fair point, but it is still worth noting that this is nearly predatory behavior. Eventually, companies do get punished for that by consumers. Good author that wants to sound independent (i.e., avoids being labeled as fanboi) should point that out. It makes article more credible.
    Apple's overall margins are around 40%. Most retail has a 50% markup on merchandise (such as clothing) to sell in a store. Software is commonly sold at a tremendously high margin because there is little cost in making digital copies.
    Often more. I've done business with big box stores and have friends in furniture, and they expect a 100% markup -- buy at X, sell for double-X. This is called keystone pricing:

    https://fitsmallbusiness.com/product-pricing/

    The term Keystone Pricing means a standard 100% markup, or doubling a product’s wholesale cost, to get the selling price.

    Keystone Pricing Math: Cost x 2 = Selling Price

    Keystone pricing is the retail pricing rule-of-thumb and also extends to retail ecommerce. 


    ...Americans pay a 100% on tons of stuff from name brand retailers, every single day. People aren't freaking out or calling it "predatory pricing". But...Apple!

    Yes thanks for the correction. I meant to say components are generally 50% the retail price, ie 100% markup.  

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 41
    avon b7 said:

    Carli said:
    Good article. The aspect missing, though is that Apple consistently charges ridiculous premiums for its phones. Recognizing that they have right to do that as long as customers pay for it, is fair point, but it is still worth noting that this is nearly predatory behavior. Eventually, companies do get punished for that by consumers. Good author that wants to sound independent (i.e., avoids being labeled as fanboi) should point that out. It makes article more credible.
    Apple's overall margins are around 40%. Most retail has a 50% markup on merchandise (such as clothing) to sell in a store. Software is commonly sold at a tremendously high margin because there is little cost in making digital copies.
    Often more. I've done business with big box stores and have friends in furniture, and they expect a 100% markup -- buy at X, sell for double-X. This is called keystone pricing:

    https://fitsmallbusiness.com/product-pricing/

    The term Keystone Pricing means a standard 100% markup, or doubling a product’s wholesale cost, to get the selling price.

    Keystone Pricing Math: Cost x 2 = Selling Price

    Keystone pricing is the retail pricing rule-of-thumb and also extends to retail ecommerce. 


    ...Americans pay a 100% on tons of stuff from name brand retailers, every single day. People aren't freaking out or calling it "predatory pricing". But...Apple!

    A lot of high markup products are highly volatile, seasonal, or perishable products or products where someone is sitting in the middle with enormous control over distribution.

    You cannot reasonably compare the markup on a T-Shirt or a red pepper with a computer.

    Look at the price of Smints per kilo and you might find you are paying more per kilo than some of the best Iberian ham.


    Hard to make any sense of what you’re saying here. But “price per kilo” has absolutely nothing to do with markup or margin. 

    You should read more and comment less. 
    StrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 41
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    If you ever think Apple's markup is too high just look in to gemstone markup. It's not often that ones jaw *literally* drops when reading something.
  • Reply 28 of 41
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,313member
    k2kw said:
    avon b7 said:
    Soli said:
    avon b7 said:
    Nice chart. All it shows is that the iPhone X is the highest selling iPhone. LOL There are 10 devices listed on that list, of them, 8 are iPhones. The other two are Samsungs. Does DED know that there are a ton of different manufacturers that produce Android devices? Apparently not. Amazon, LG, Huawei, HTC, Google, Motorola, Essential, Sony, Lenovo... all of these phones run Android. This is a poorly written and grossly biased native advertising piece for Apple. Apple has like no market share.
    Hilariously, you don't even realize why what you said is absurd. I know you're a troll, but the chart depicts profit-share. That it's dominated by iPhones is, in fact, the entire reason that it's notable.

    Apple has a minority market share, yet they eat up the majority of the profits -- all your knockoff vendors make jack squat. Sorry, bub, but profit is the air corporations breath, not market share. Market share is what fandroids chant because their offshore heroes aren't make any actual money. Flavors of the week.

    Pretty poor showing for your first post.
    Is one quarter representative of anything save that quarter?

    Can someone dig out a chart of the same information over the two years prior to that quarter?

    I had heard that Apple was on a downward slide and had hit 60%. Was there any evidence to support that because from over 100% down to 60% seems like quite a slide.

    I'd much rather see the trend (whichever way it pointed) than a cherry-picked Christmas quarter that had a third and most expensive Apple phone ever, pent-up demand and a potential super-cycle attached to it.
    Wait, are you assuming that the previous article about how much profit share they're taking in is also using that odd, quasi-accounting method to note all the vendors that are losing money? Based on the article, it would seem that all those thousands of Android-based vendors are breaking even, which I doubt is the case, so I don't think you can make any comparison. In fact, I'd just go ahead and forget about all those articles that made those claims of Apple getting over 100% of the retail profits.
    Ah yes, I know, but so many people band that one about so I thought I'd throw it in.

    I'm firmly in the group that says if my phone manufacturing company makes phones to return a profit and I'm making money, then I'm happy, no matter what Apple is doing. Especially if I'm turning a profit with my low end phones.

    I just find it unreasonable to spout this 'but Apple makes all the money' (especially when such a lot of it ends up sitting in a bank for years). If it were their money I would understand it but it isn't.

    Others are in fact investing more in R&D than Apple, making money (millions at that) arguably producing better phones and at more competitive prices and selling lots of them. I'm glad that competition exists and that some are prepared to sacrifice some of their margins into the bargain.

    That's not to begrudge the situation. If someone really thinks the price is right for an iPhone, then great, but saying Apple has all the profits or most of them is a throwaway line at best.






    Could you list 2 -3 phone manufacturers and how much they made and why you think they are better?
    Sure. At the top end you have Huawei and Samsung. AI has run a lot on Samsung and very little on Huawei so I'll highlight some Huawei things. For how much they made:

    http://www.huawei.com/en/press-events/news/2018/3/Huawei-2017-Annual-Report

    Summing up:

    http://www.mobilenewscwp.co.uk/2018/04/04/huawei-2017-revenue-surges-15-7pc-to-68-1bn/

    Huawei has better and larger batteries (without much thicker phones as a result), better charging technology (definitely faster, possibly safer too (TüV Rheinland certification on some) and you get a fast charger in the box), some can even reverse charge, better, faster modems - Cat 18 (not surprising given Huawei's experience in telecommunications), the Mate 10 or P20 series pick up adjectives like 'stunning', 'spectacular', 'gorgeous', 'beautiful' for their design and although it is a question of taste, pit the blue or twilight P20 series or Mate 10 series against any iPhone and ask what people think. Build quality? Ultra premium. Design wise, 'full screen' is the norm now and Apple only has one such phone and it costs over 1,000 dollars. The rest simply look dated in 2018. Huawei was first with a real dual camera setup for photography and first with the triple camera too. It was also actually first with a portrait mode even though it does things a different way to the iPhone.

    The P20 Pro does things that no other phone camera can do. Up to 5X hybrid zoom and Night Mode for example (Artificial Intelligence Assisted Stabilisation). Most people have no qualms describing the new Night Mode as simply jaw dropping. The camera side is just too extense to go into detail on. The Kirin 970 NPU is used for voice enhancement (both sending and receiving), onboard (no cloud connection needed) fast, text translation, image recognition, reducing motion blur, predictive AI enhanced autofocus etc.

    The Mate 10 and later have dual simultaneous VoLTE, excellent cell tower handover capability at high speed. Amazing location tracking if your part of the world offers the extras necessary so if you enter a tunnel your navegation system won't lose you as easily. Amazing low temperature resistance. When the Mate 10 debuted someone took it up to Alaska for a photo shoot with the iPhone X. The only photos that came back were from the Mate 10. The iPhone X stopped working.

    At the ultra high end you have a 512GB option (the only one of its kind on a phone - Mate RS), in screen fingerprint sensor and microcapsule cooling - another first on a phone). 

    This is just off the top of my head. Feel free to watch the presentations of these phones where most of the comparisons were either to the iPhone X and latest Samsung phones and look up the numerous reviews.

    Software wise you get A LOT of options but if you prefer you can limit yourself to the most basic ones.  In a squeeze you also have a desktop mode that allows you to connect your phone to a screen and use it like a basic computer (no special dock needed). You also have the option to use the phone screen as a trackpad.

    Moving down to more budget focussed phones you have Honor and Oppo who pack a serious punch but lack the the finer details of their big brothers (lacking Leica branding for example on the Honors). But still, on the V10 and 10 you get the Kirin970 SoC etc. To gauge profits for only the Chinese brands:

    https://www.counterpointresearch.com/chinese-brands-mobile-handset-profit-crossed-us1-5-billion-first-time-single-quarter/

    Moving out of the middle ground and down into the lower tiers, you reach things like the Honor 7X. 

    https://www.zdnet.com/article/huaweis-200-honor-7x-is-the-future-of-the-smartphone-industry/

    Moving down still further, let's take a look at a
    national manufacturer and just one of the reasons of my earlier posts. BQ. This manufacturer has no interest in taking the most profits. It has no aspirations to be a world force in the smartphone market. It was founded with a goal. It has been successful for years and virtually no one reading this has even heard of them. So, while it is a successful smartphone manufacturer, it knows its place in the world ranking (almost at the bottom) and when someone says Apple is taking all the profits, it just looks on perplexed at the claim. A totally worthless claim when there are companies still making millions (billions even).

    The phone market will probably see severe convergence over the coming years and a lot of the smaller brands will disappear but that takes nothing away from why the exist nor what they have achieved, in spite of not taking all the profits.




    edited April 2018
  • Reply 29 of 41
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,313member
    avon b7 said:

    Carli said:
    Good article. The aspect missing, though is that Apple consistently charges ridiculous premiums for its phones. Recognizing that they have right to do that as long as customers pay for it, is fair point, but it is still worth noting that this is nearly predatory behavior. Eventually, companies do get punished for that by consumers. Good author that wants to sound independent (i.e., avoids being labeled as fanboi) should point that out. It makes article more credible.
    Apple's overall margins are around 40%. Most retail has a 50% markup on merchandise (such as clothing) to sell in a store. Software is commonly sold at a tremendously high margin because there is little cost in making digital copies.
    Often more. I've done business with big box stores and have friends in furniture, and they expect a 100% markup -- buy at X, sell for double-X. This is called keystone pricing:

    https://fitsmallbusiness.com/product-pricing/

    The term Keystone Pricing means a standard 100% markup, or doubling a product’s wholesale cost, to get the selling price.

    Keystone Pricing Math: Cost x 2 = Selling Price

    Keystone pricing is the retail pricing rule-of-thumb and also extends to retail ecommerce. 


    ...Americans pay a 100% on tons of stuff from name brand retailers, every single day. People aren't freaking out or calling it "predatory pricing". But...Apple!

    A lot of high markup products are highly volatile, seasonal, or perishable products or products where someone is sitting in the middle with enormous control over distribution.

    You cannot reasonably compare the markup on a T-Shirt or a red pepper with a computer.

    Look at the price of Smints per kilo and you might find you are paying more per kilo than some of the best Iberian ham.


    Hard to make any sense of what you’re saying here. But “price per kilo” has absolutely nothing to do with markup or margin. 

    You should read more and comment less. 
    Couldn't a little common sense get you past 'price per kilo'?

    The point was you are paying 2€ for a pack containing around 7g. That's probably a mark-up of over 500% (I wouldn't be surprised if it was far, far higher).

    The real point was that it is irrelevant. Like comparing the mark-up on t-shirts to the mark-up on computers.


  • Reply 30 of 41
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 1,647member
    avon b7 said:

    Carli said:
    Good article. The aspect missing, though is that Apple consistently charges ridiculous premiums for its phones. Recognizing that they have right to do that as long as customers pay for it, is fair point, but it is still worth noting that this is nearly predatory behavior. Eventually, companies do get punished for that by consumers. Good author that wants to sound independent (i.e., avoids being labeled as fanboi) should point that out. It makes article more credible.
    Apple's overall margins are around 40%. Most retail has a 50% markup on merchandise (such as clothing) to sell in a store. Software is commonly sold at a tremendously high margin because there is little cost in making digital copies.
    Often more. I've done business with big box stores and have friends in furniture, and they expect a 100% markup -- buy at X, sell for double-X. This is called keystone pricing:

    https://fitsmallbusiness.com/product-pricing/

    The term Keystone Pricing means a standard 100% markup, or doubling a product’s wholesale cost, to get the selling price.

    Keystone Pricing Math: Cost x 2 = Selling Price

    Keystone pricing is the retail pricing rule-of-thumb and also extends to retail ecommerce. 


    ...Americans pay a 100% on tons of stuff from name brand retailers, every single day. People aren't freaking out or calling it "predatory pricing". But...Apple!

    A lot of high markup products are highly volatile, seasonal, or perishable products or products where someone is sitting in the middle with enormous control over distribution.

    You cannot reasonably compare the markup on a T-Shirt or a red pepper with a computer.

    Look at the price of Smints per kilo and you might find you are paying more per kilo than some of the best Iberian ham.


    Hard to make any sense of what you’re saying here. But “price per kilo” has absolutely nothing to do with markup or margin. 

    You should read more and comment less. 
    Daniel,
       Since these "reporters" and "analysts" do such a bad job predicting Apple's performance.    What are your predictions for the Jan-Mar quarter for
    A.  Number of iPhones sold and ASP.

    B.  Number of HomePods sold (and how much revenue it brings in?

    I'm will to guess that the number of phones will be up 1% YOY and ASP will be up but not as high as it was in the Oct-Dec quarter.

    I think Apple sold atleast 5 Million HPs and added almost $2 Billion to their revenue.    I think they will sell 1-2 million the next two quarters.   And 3-5 million in the Holiday
    quarter.   By the end of the year it they should have sold atleast 10 Million HPs.     Apple will surely get a bump when Stereo support comes out. and when Siri finally gets fixed in 2 years they will be sell a ton of these.   Hopefully they will also come out with a HomePodPro or HomeTheater HomeBar.   I could see a family having 10 of these.



    watto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 41
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 6,830member
    avon b7 said:

    Carli said:
    Good article. The aspect missing, though is that Apple consistently charges ridiculous premiums for its phones. Recognizing that they have right to do that as long as customers pay for it, is fair point, but it is still worth noting that this is nearly predatory behavior. Eventually, companies do get punished for that by consumers. Good author that wants to sound independent (i.e., avoids being labeled as fanboi) should point that out. It makes article more credible.
    Apple's overall margins are around 40%. Most retail has a 50% markup on merchandise (such as clothing) to sell in a store. Software is commonly sold at a tremendously high margin because there is little cost in making digital copies.
    Often more. I've done business with big box stores and have friends in furniture, and they expect a 100% markup -- buy at X, sell for double-X. This is called keystone pricing:

    https://fitsmallbusiness.com/product-pricing/

    The term Keystone Pricing means a standard 100% markup, or doubling a product’s wholesale cost, to get the selling price.

    Keystone Pricing Math: Cost x 2 = Selling Price

    Keystone pricing is the retail pricing rule-of-thumb and also extends to retail ecommerce. 


    ...Americans pay a 100% on tons of stuff from name brand retailers, every single day. People aren't freaking out or calling it "predatory pricing". But...Apple!

    A lot of high markup products are highly volatile, seasonal, or perishable products or products where someone is sitting in the middle with enormous control over distribution.

    You cannot reasonably compare the markup on a T-Shirt or a red pepper with a computer.

    Look at the price of Smints per kilo and you might find you are paying more per kilo than some of the best Iberian ham.
    No. Having worked in this market I speak from experience — many retailers in the US routinely charge 100% markup everyday. I’m not talking about grocers, perishable or volatile products, but normal retailers, and furniture and home decor in particular. “Keystone pricing” is a normal thing and has nothing to do with your made up claim about volatile products. 

    This was in response to some hair-brained comment that Apple’s markup is too high and they’ll be punished for it. 


    edited April 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 41
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 6,830member
    avon b7 said:
    Soli said:
    avon b7 said:
    Nice chart. All it shows is that the iPhone X is the highest selling iPhone. LOL There are 10 devices listed on that list, of them, 8 are iPhones. The other two are Samsungs. Does DED know that there are a ton of different manufacturers that produce Android devices? Apparently not. Amazon, LG, Huawei, HTC, Google, Motorola, Essential, Sony, Lenovo... all of these phones run Android. This is a poorly written and grossly biased native advertising piece for Apple. Apple has like no market share.
    Hilariously, you don't even realize why what you said is absurd. I know you're a troll, but the chart depicts profit-share. That it's dominated by iPhones is, in fact, the entire reason that it's notable.

    Apple has a minority market share, yet they eat up the majority of the profits -- all your knockoff vendors make jack squat. Sorry, bub, but profit is the air corporations breath, not market share. Market share is what fandroids chant because their offshore heroes aren't make any actual money. Flavors of the week.

    Pretty poor showing for your first post.
    Is one quarter representative of anything save that quarter?

    Can someone dig out a chart of the same information over the two years prior to that quarter?

    I had heard that Apple was on a downward slide and had hit 60%. Was there any evidence to support that because from over 100% down to 60% seems like quite a slide.

    I'd much rather see the trend (whichever way it pointed) than a cherry-picked Christmas quarter that had a third and most expensive Apple phone ever, pent-up demand and a potential super-cycle attached to it.
    Wait, are you assuming that the previous article about how much profit share they're taking in is also using that odd, quasi-accounting method to note all the vendors that are losing money? Based on the article, it would seem that all those thousands of Android-based vendors are breaking even, which I doubt is the case, so I don't think you can make any comparison. In fact, I'd just go ahead and forget about all those articles that made those claims of Apple getting over 100% of the retail profits.
    Ah yes, I know, but so many people band that one about so I thought I'd throw it in.

    I'm firmly in the group that says if my phone manufacturing company makes phones to return a profit and I'm making money, then I'm happy, no matter what Apple is doing. Especially if I'm turning a profit with my low end phones.

    I just find it unreasonable to spout this 'but Apple makes all the money' (especially when such a lot of it ends up sitting in a bank for years). If it were their money I would understand it but it isn't.

    Others are in fact investing more in R&D than Apple, making money (millions at that) arguably producing better phones and at more competitive prices and selling lots of them. I'm glad that competition exists and that some are prepared to sacrifice some of their margins into the bargain.

    That's not to begrudge the situation. If someone really thinks the price is right for an iPhone, then great, but saying Apple has all the profits or most of them is a throwaway line at best.
    Jesus talk about moving the goalposts. It’s shown time and again Apple sucks up all the profits in the sector and now you’re going on about “Yeah but they don’t spend as much on R&D!” What the fuck? 

    And the knockoffs making arguably better phones? Riiiight. Nope just more chinese crap. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 41
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 6,830member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:

    Carli said:
    Good article. The aspect missing, though is that Apple consistently charges ridiculous premiums for its phones. Recognizing that they have right to do that as long as customers pay for it, is fair point, but it is still worth noting that this is nearly predatory behavior. Eventually, companies do get punished for that by consumers. Good author that wants to sound independent (i.e., avoids being labeled as fanboi) should point that out. It makes article more credible.
    Apple's overall margins are around 40%. Most retail has a 50% markup on merchandise (such as clothing) to sell in a store. Software is commonly sold at a tremendously high margin because there is little cost in making digital copies.
    Often more. I've done business with big box stores and have friends in furniture, and they expect a 100% markup -- buy at X, sell for double-X. This is called keystone pricing:

    https://fitsmallbusiness.com/product-pricing/

    The term Keystone Pricing means a standard 100% markup, or doubling a product’s wholesale cost, to get the selling price.

    Keystone Pricing Math: Cost x 2 = Selling Price

    Keystone pricing is the retail pricing rule-of-thumb and also extends to retail ecommerce. 


    ...Americans pay a 100% on tons of stuff from name brand retailers, every single day. People aren't freaking out or calling it "predatory pricing". But...Apple!

    A lot of high markup products are highly volatile, seasonal, or perishable products or products where someone is sitting in the middle with enormous control over distribution.

    You cannot reasonably compare the markup on a T-Shirt or a red pepper with a computer.

    Look at the price of Smints per kilo and you might find you are paying more per kilo than some of the best Iberian ham.


    Hard to make any sense of what you’re saying here. But “price per kilo” has absolutely nothing to do with markup or margin. 

    You should read more and comment less. 
    Couldn't a little common sense get you past 'price per kilo'?

    The point was you are paying 2€ for a pack containing around 7g. That's probably a mark-up of over 500% (I wouldn't be surprised if it was far, far higher).

    The real point was that it is irrelevant. Like comparing the mark-up on t-shirts to the mark-up on computers.
    And yet, nobody brought up t-shirts except you. The furniture retailers I’m thinking of, both big-box national and high-end local, sell items which cost as much or more than cell phones and personal computers. At 100% markup. This is a thing. It’s called....keystone pricing. Stoping dancing around trying to move the goalposts and just accept it. People don’t whine about it for this items and there’s no reason to whine about Apple’s much lower markup as the fellow I replied to was. 
    edited April 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 41
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,313member
    Soli said:
    avon b7 said:
    Soli said:
    avon b7 said:
    Nice chart. All it shows is that the iPhone X is the highest selling iPhone. LOL There are 10 devices listed on that list, of them, 8 are iPhones. The other two are Samsungs. Does DED know that there are a ton of different manufacturers that produce Android devices? Apparently not. Amazon, LG, Huawei, HTC, Google, Motorola, Essential, Sony, Lenovo... all of these phones run Android. This is a poorly written and grossly biased native advertising piece for Apple. Apple has like no market share.
    Hilariously, you don't even realize why what you said is absurd. I know you're a troll, but the chart depicts profit-share. That it's dominated by iPhones is, in fact, the entire reason that it's notable.

    Apple has a minority market share, yet they eat up the majority of the profits -- all your knockoff vendors make jack squat. Sorry, bub, but profit is the air corporations breath, not market share. Market share is what fandroids chant because their offshore heroes aren't make any actual money. Flavors of the week.

    Pretty poor showing for your first post.
    Is one quarter representative of anything save that quarter?

    Can someone dig out a chart of the same information over the two years prior to that quarter?

    I had heard that Apple was on a downward slide and had hit 60%. Was there any evidence to support that because from over 100% down to 60% seems like quite a slide.

    I'd much rather see the trend (whichever way it pointed) than a cherry-picked Christmas quarter that had a third and most expensive Apple phone ever, pent-up demand and a potential super-cycle attached to it.
    Wait, are you assuming that the previous article about how much profit share they're taking in is also using that odd, quasi-accounting method to note all the vendors that are losing money? Based on the article, it would seem that all those thousands of Android-based vendors are breaking even, which I doubt is the case, so I don't think you can make any comparison. In fact, I'd just go ahead and forget about all those articles that made those claims of Apple getting over 100% of the retail profits.
    If it were their money I would understand it but it isn't.
    For many Apple fans, it sorta is in the way of stock, even though we can look at Apple and Amazon to see that profits apparently mean nothing in terms of company confidence and future growth.

    Others are in fact investing more in R&D than Apple, making money (millions at that) arguably producing better phones and at more competitive prices and selling lots of them. I'm glad that competition exists and that some are prepared to sacrifice some of their margins into the bargain.

    Apple has a tradition with internet-based pundits and analysts that start off something like "no one wants this feature" to "too it's too expensive for the market" all with the typical remakes that Apple is doomed to fail. These typically end up with the industry playing catchup with the many years of R&D Apple puts into products with the eventual "it was all an obvious next step" and "Apple didn't really do anything that wasn't going to happen anyway."

    From economies of scale for the sheer volume of a given model to the efficiencies and consumer interest all allow Apple to be profitable. That's impressive and useful information. I don't want to buy some cheap Android-based device that has no incentive to keep me protected and is very open to having crapware (or worse) pre-installed as a way of turning a profit or reducing a loss (as we've seen for decades without with the WinPC market).

    Unlike other industries, Apple has done this despite being very late to a seemingly established market and not being a monopoly.

    I've often wondered how many Apple fans really have an investment in the company as I have never ever met one, and very few of my internet contacts have either. Some admit to having 'some shares' but not truly as an investment, more like when my mum bets on the Grand National. She doesn't bet regularly but likes to bet on that one race. She watches that race and bets on it but not on others. No doubt some people have shares in Apple simply because they have some kind of 'attachment' LOL, with the company. Some here on AI claim to have large stakes (real investment for investment purposes) in the company but I doubt they are representative of most members or users.

    The last time I truly considered Apple stock was in 1997 but I was going to use money that wasn't spare and got cold feet. :-(

    When the stock started rising I kicked myself and have never bought into Apple since then on the belief that it had peaked. LOL. I still feel the same way as, in spite of major inroads into services etc, the company is still very iPhone dependant and any wobbling in that area sends the stock spiralling. I think Apple was 13 dollars when I was considering buying. I'm too risk averse to buy at today's prices and still don't have enough spare cash around anyway.

    I think your R&D comments were probably more representative when there were more compelling reasons to upgrade for the average customer. Phones hit 'good enough' status a few years ago and since then people have been happy with mid-range phones and it seems many iPhone users are taking longer to upgrade too (again, in part to their being no compelling reason to do so). That, and market saturation have seen Apple stall somewhat in recent years. Design, and the whims of design, are now also playing a bigger part in purchase decisions. Sticking with the same basic design for a few years might be backfiring on Apple.

    From another angle, Apple took far too long to embrace larger screens but they came in the end and pushed sales. Now, in a year where 'full screen' phones and 'notches' are in fashion, Apple only has one phone with those attributes and it is ultra expensive. Unless a new SE appears with a full screen in the next few weeks, Apple's entire lineup with the exception of iPhone X looks frankly dated (foreheads and chins) and could stay that way until the end of the year.

    People talk about FaceID but again, it is only on one phone, and again it's the most expensive one. People raved on ARKit but again, there are no compelling AR solutions to spur upgrades (yet, at least).

    Meanwhile, competitors are relentlessly offering attractive handsets at a full range of prices (some are even far more expensive than iPhone X) and one-upping Apple all too frequently. To the point that Apple is almost playing catch-up now:

    Battery tech
    Wireless charging
    OLED
    Modems
    Camera tech (P20 Pro)
    Design
    Voice Assistants
    Etc.

    Apple still has plenty of strong points but it is undeniable that things have changed A LOT in the last few years and there are players pumping more and more into R&D with excellent results.

    "I don't want to buy some cheap Android-based device that has no incentive to keep me protected and is very open to having crapware (or worse)..."

    Things have changed a bit over the last few years. The crap is still there on some devices but you can now buy phones with a manufacturers commitment to at least two years of updates. It might not be perfect but neither is Apple. On top of that, the Google apps (if you use them) receive constant updates.

    As I said in another post, you can now purchase phones that are arguably on a par or superior to iPhones at notably lower prices. Yes, you leave iOS behind but when I switched I had no issues. So few, that I wouldn't be able to go back without a lot of suffering. Today, when I pickup the iPhone 6 at home I feel trapped by the limited options offered. That is so ironic because in the Android world people often criticise the EMUI interface that comes on all Huawei phones.








  • Reply 35 of 41
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,549member
    avon b7 said:
    I've often wondered how many Apple fans really have an investment in the company as I have never ever met one, and very few of my internet contacts have either. Some admit to having 'some shares' but not truly as an investment,
    If you have even any stock in AAPL you vested in the company.

    Meanwhile, competitors are relentlessly offering attractive handsets at a full range of prices (some are even far more expensive than iPhone X) and one-upping Apple all too frequently. To the point that Apple is almost playing catch-up now:
    Based on that winning argument Apple is always playing catchup because they're rarely ever a "me first" company. Funny that you have modems in your list since a decade ago Apple was just "playing catchup" in the smartphone business and people like you said that they couldn't ever get a food in the door because of how well establish and technologically superior the handset vendors were against the iPod company with no experience or business making a smartphone.

    Around the same time it was said that Apple was foolish for buying PA Semi. Funny how all your comments about Apple being too late and only playing catchup keep resulting in Apple dominating the market. It's almost as if your comments are complete BS. 🤔
    edited April 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 41
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,313member
    avon b7 said:
    Soli said:
    avon b7 said:
    Nice chart. All it shows is that the iPhone X is the highest selling iPhone. LOL There are 10 devices listed on that list, of them, 8 are iPhones. The other two are Samsungs. Does DED know that there are a ton of different manufacturers that produce Android devices? Apparently not. Amazon, LG, Huawei, HTC, Google, Motorola, Essential, Sony, Lenovo... all of these phones run Android. This is a poorly written and grossly biased native advertising piece for Apple. Apple has like no market share.
    Hilariously, you don't even realize why what you said is absurd. I know you're a troll, but the chart depicts profit-share. That it's dominated by iPhones is, in fact, the entire reason that it's notable.

    Apple has a minority market share, yet they eat up the majority of the profits -- all your knockoff vendors make jack squat. Sorry, bub, but profit is the air corporations breath, not market share. Market share is what fandroids chant because their offshore heroes aren't make any actual money. Flavors of the week.

    Pretty poor showing for your first post.
    Is one quarter representative of anything save that quarter?

    Can someone dig out a chart of the same information over the two years prior to that quarter?

    I had heard that Apple was on a downward slide and had hit 60%. Was there any evidence to support that because from over 100% down to 60% seems like quite a slide.

    I'd much rather see the trend (whichever way it pointed) than a cherry-picked Christmas quarter that had a third and most expensive Apple phone ever, pent-up demand and a potential super-cycle attached to it.
    Wait, are you assuming that the previous article about how much profit share they're taking in is also using that odd, quasi-accounting method to note all the vendors that are losing money? Based on the article, it would seem that all those thousands of Android-based vendors are breaking even, which I doubt is the case, so I don't think you can make any comparison. In fact, I'd just go ahead and forget about all those articles that made those claims of Apple getting over 100% of the retail profits.
    Ah yes, I know, but so many people band that one about so I thought I'd throw it in.

    I'm firmly in the group that says if my phone manufacturing company makes phones to return a profit and I'm making money, then I'm happy, no matter what Apple is doing. Especially if I'm turning a profit with my low end phones.

    I just find it unreasonable to spout this 'but Apple makes all the money' (especially when such a lot of it ends up sitting in a bank for years). If it were their money I would understand it but it isn't.

    Others are in fact investing more in R&D than Apple, making money (millions at that) arguably producing better phones and at more competitive prices and selling lots of them. I'm glad that competition exists and that some are prepared to sacrifice some of their margins into the bargain.

    That's not to begrudge the situation. If someone really thinks the price is right for an iPhone, then great, but saying Apple has all the profits or most of them is a throwaway line at best.
    Jesus talk about moving the goalposts. It’s shown time and again Apple sucks up all the profits in the sector and now you’re going on about “Yeah but they don’t spend as much on R&D!” What the fuck? 

    And the knockoffs making arguably better phones? Riiiight. Nope just more chinese crap. 
    Er, no.

    No goalposts have been moved.

    Is having more profit actually a defining factor? All I see is a cash pile that is increasing. Is that actually doing anything for users? Why even bring the subject up in the first place? Please enlighten me. I even went so far as to name a company that doesn't have the slightest ambition to be at the top or have the most profits but that has been successful nevertheless. So just tell me why having the most profits is relevant to me, the user. 

    Is Huawei or Samsung or anyone else 'inferior' because they have less profits? Is that how you see things?

    I brought up R&D for two reasons. One is that there are no guarantees on a return on R&D. The other is that you seem to be under the impression that all manufacturers apart from Apple are crap ''knock-offs".

    Why would knock-offs even have to invest in R&D? Much less invest more than Apple!, I've asked you time and time again to detail your knock-off claims without ever getting a decent reply. Would you like to post your Huawei KFC phone photo again?

    All I can assume is that you have no valid answer beyond your simplistic affirmation.

    I put examples on the table. Real examples. I've supported them with the relevant links. You post photos of a KFC branded Huawei phone.

    What am I to make of that?




    edited April 2018
  • Reply 37 of 41
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,313member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:

    Carli said:
    Good article. The aspect missing, though is that Apple consistently charges ridiculous premiums for its phones. Recognizing that they have right to do that as long as customers pay for it, is fair point, but it is still worth noting that this is nearly predatory behavior. Eventually, companies do get punished for that by consumers. Good author that wants to sound independent (i.e., avoids being labeled as fanboi) should point that out. It makes article more credible.
    Apple's overall margins are around 40%. Most retail has a 50% markup on merchandise (such as clothing) to sell in a store. Software is commonly sold at a tremendously high margin because there is little cost in making digital copies.
    Often more. I've done business with big box stores and have friends in furniture, and they expect a 100% markup -- buy at X, sell for double-X. This is called keystone pricing:

    https://fitsmallbusiness.com/product-pricing/

    The term Keystone Pricing means a standard 100% markup, or doubling a product’s wholesale cost, to get the selling price.

    Keystone Pricing Math: Cost x 2 = Selling Price

    Keystone pricing is the retail pricing rule-of-thumb and also extends to retail ecommerce. 


    ...Americans pay a 100% on tons of stuff from name brand retailers, every single day. People aren't freaking out or calling it "predatory pricing". But...Apple!

    A lot of high markup products are highly volatile, seasonal, or perishable products or products where someone is sitting in the middle with enormous control over distribution.

    You cannot reasonably compare the markup on a T-Shirt or a red pepper with a computer.

    Look at the price of Smints per kilo and you might find you are paying more per kilo than some of the best Iberian ham.


    Hard to make any sense of what you’re saying here. But “price per kilo” has absolutely nothing to do with markup or margin. 

    You should read more and comment less. 
    Couldn't a little common sense get you past 'price per kilo'?

    The point was you are paying 2€ for a pack containing around 7g. That's probably a mark-up of over 500% (I wouldn't be surprised if it was far, far higher).

    The real point was that it is irrelevant. Like comparing the mark-up on t-shirts to the mark-up on computers.
    And yet, nobody brought up t-shirts except you. The furniture retailers I’m thinking of, both big-box national and high-end local, sell items which cost as much or more than cell phones and personal computers. At 100% markup. This is a thing. It’s called....keystone pricing. Stoping dancing around trying to move the goalposts and just accept it. People don’t whine about it for this items and there’s no reason to whine about Apple’s much lower markup as the fellow I replied to was. 
    The T-shirt example was just an example. I was actually thinking of Nike and the markup on their football shirts.

    It is irrelevant. Keystone pricing is irrelevant. You seem to have missed that.

    What is relevant - in this context - is how much you can price an article for profit (phone in this case) and persuade people to purchase it in sufficient numbers.

    There are many reasons to believe they are overpriced but what counts is market performance, not our opinions.

    I switched solely on price. You didn't. You bought an iPhone X for 1,000+ dollars. I bought a 249€ handset.

    What counts for Apple is if they are happy with unit sales for the asking price.
  • Reply 38 of 41
    nhtnht Posts: 4,397member
    avon b7 said:

    There are many reasons to believe they are overpriced but what counts is market performance, not our opinions.

    I switched solely on price. You didn't. You bought an iPhone X for 1,000+ dollars. I bought a 249€ handset.

    What counts for Apple is if they are happy with unit sales for the asking price.
    They may be happy but you seem so disgruntled as to continually spread FUD about Apple.  Enjoy your Chinese phones...they have their own forums you know.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 39 of 41
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,313member
    nht said:
    avon b7 said:

    There are many reasons to believe they are overpriced but what counts is market performance, not our opinions.

    I switched solely on price. You didn't. You bought an iPhone X for 1,000+ dollars. I bought a 249€ handset.

    What counts for Apple is if they are happy with unit sales for the asking price.
    They may be happy but you seem so disgruntled as to continually spread FUD about Apple.  Enjoy your Chinese phones...they have their own forums you know.
    FUD? FUD?

    Still have far more Apple gear than any other brand. Still have an opinion, which I'll express freely thank you very much. You don't like it, that's nothing new, but FUD? 

    I'll call it as I see it and having access to both Android AND iOS I can actually base my opinion on something, I support it with links when the information is tangible and you should know when an opinion is speculation or not.

    I don't live in an 'us' and 'them' world. I have no burning desire to mock, ridicule or hate other people or companies. I don't run around shouting 'troll' at people who criticise Apple or show support for competitors.

    If you want FUD, it's our there but not from me.


    feudalist
  • Reply 40 of 41
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,549member
    avon b7 said:
    nht said:
    avon b7 said:

    There are many reasons to believe they are overpriced but what counts is market performance, not our opinions.

    I switched solely on price. You didn't. You bought an iPhone X for 1,000+ dollars. I bought a 249€ handset.

    What counts for Apple is if they are happy with unit sales for the asking price.
    They may be happy but you seem so disgruntled as to continually spread FUD about Apple.  Enjoy your Chinese phones...they have their own forums you know.
    FUD? FUD?

    Still have far more Apple gear than any other brand. Still have an opinion, which I'll express freely thank you very much. You don't like it, that's nothing new, but FUD? 

    I'll call it as I see it and having access to both Android AND iOS I can actually base my opinion on something, I support it with links when the information is tangible and you should know when an opinion is speculation or not.

    I don't live in an 'us' and 'them' world. I have no burning desire to mock, ridicule or hate other people or companies. I don't run around shouting 'troll' at people who criticise Apple or show support for competitors.

    If you want FUD, it's our there but not from me.
    The point is that mentioning that you Apple products, that you use Apple products, that you have more Apple products than any other brand, and/or that you own more Apple products than the next guy neither adds to your credibility and is a red flag as that statement is almost always used in conjunction with an "Apple sucks because…" statement. It's the technological equivalent of stating a sentence with "I'm not racist but…" You know that the chances of anything credible coming from that statement is highly unlikely.
    edited April 2018 watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.