In numbers current as of last month, Android owns 78% of the worldwide market. That number pretty much speaks for itself.
Errrnt, nope. That's just the nonsense of worshipping at the church of market share. Android isn't a company or even a product, it's a splintered code base out in the wild. The vast majority of its market share is provided by cheap chinese knockoffs that nobody even cares about.
Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up. It's feasting on the lion's share of meat while the rest of the android hyenas fight amongst themselves for scraps of leather and bone. "But there are more hyenas than lions!" Uhh yeah, so what??
Android is a product. No doubt about it.
iOS is also splintered, just not as much.
The vast majority of market share is not taken by your so-called Chinese knock-offs.
Uhm, you are aware that Apple will be supporting iOS 12 all the way back to the iPhone 5s which arrived in September 2013; essentially every 64 bit iPhone model. Not much "splintered" there compared to all of the unique models, UX's and UI's, forks, and bundled spyware, that as a generalization, defines Android OS devices.
Certainly, specific device makers do better than others as far as Android OS "splintering".
No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit, but it is certainly true that Apple retains most of the profits of hardware device makers. What you don't like to acknowledge, much anyway, is the acquisition costs that those same Chinese device makers have to sink in order to increase unit sales.
But, yeah, I'm not supposed to talk about ASP 'cause it hurts the consumer.
Uhm, yes I'm aware of that. It won't change what I said.
"No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit"
But they did, and it is one of the reasons I commented. You quoted it yourself. If you click on 'show previous quotes' you will see this:
"Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up"
You are correct, though.
ASP (you're talking specifically about high ASP) doesn't hurt (beyond burning a bigger hole in the pocket) the consumer. It is simply irrevelant to the consumer.
Lack of enough ASP for a device maker forces them to cobble up and install a heck of a lot of crap (malware, spyware, adware, sketchy services) on a device in order to generate a bit of revenue. Wouldn't you agree that might lead to a lesser user experience compared to, say, a Pixel 2?
I have said it many times. Most companies exist to make money. Very, very few aspire to make the most money.
The same applies to ASP.
You have people right here claiming 'but Apple makes the most money', 'Apple has the highest ASP', etc
My reply is 'and...?'
In the past I have given examples of companies that just want to provide a decent product at a decent price and do it profitably.
This particular industry has reached saturation point in the developed world, has seen slight contraction and consolidation. That is putting a squeeze on the smaller fish in the pond but there are still hundreds of companies making a profit even though some go out of business.
At the other end you have companies producing far better phones than even the iPhone X, at far lower prices, on much lower ASPs. Huawei invests 10% of its revenues each year in R&D and has more than 80,000 employees working in R&D around the globe. It counts profits in the billions but doesn't have the highest ASP. That R&D investment can lead to patents. Ironically, Apple licences a ton of patents to Apple. All this with a far lower ASP than Apple.
ASP is nice for investors. Consumers don't care. Perhaps they would care more if they were informed of how much of the purchase price went directly into Apple's tax free coffers and sat there for years on end.
You totally ignored the point of crapware as a substitute for revenue on low ASP models. That certainly has an effect on consumers, who likely care about malware, spyware, and adware, that comes with there "cheap" phone.
While I have innumerable Android handsets available to me in-store and online, I have yet to see any that jump out as the 'crapware' type that you mention.
If you had thought things through a little more, you may have resisted from posting that link. ;-)
It is mainly about phones that are returned -from retail. Unsold phones or phones returned to retail after initial sale. Not good.
It also states that a tiny percentage are sold abroad. Demand is high for lower priced iPhone X where phones such as the P20 Pro aren't as readily available. It might explain why I have only seen about three iPhone X in the wild since release in my neck of the woods.
In numbers current as of last month, Android owns 78% of the worldwide market. That number pretty much speaks for itself.
Errrnt, nope. That's just the nonsense of worshipping at the church of market share. Android isn't a company or even a product, it's a splintered code base out in the wild. The vast majority of its market share is provided by cheap chinese knockoffs that nobody even cares about.
Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up. It's feasting on the lion's share of meat while the rest of the android hyenas fight amongst themselves for scraps of leather and bone. "But there are more hyenas than lions!" Uhh yeah, so what??
Android is a product. No doubt about it.
iOS is also splintered, just not as much.
The vast majority of market share is not taken by your so-called Chinese knock-offs.
Uhm, you are aware that Apple will be supporting iOS 12 all the way back to the iPhone 5s which arrived in September 2013; essentially every 64 bit iPhone model. Not much "splintered" there compared to all of the unique models, UX's and UI's, forks, and bundled spyware, that as a generalization, defines Android OS devices.
Certainly, specific device makers do better than others as far as Android OS "splintering".
No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit, but it is certainly true that Apple retains most of the profits of hardware device makers. What you don't like to acknowledge, much anyway, is the acquisition costs that those same Chinese device makers have to sink in order to increase unit sales.
But, yeah, I'm not supposed to talk about ASP 'cause it hurts the consumer.
Uhm, yes I'm aware of that. It won't change what I said.
"No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit"
But they did, and it is one of the reasons I commented. You quoted it yourself. If you click on 'show previous quotes' you will see this:
"Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up"
You are correct, though.
ASP (you're talking specifically about high ASP) doesn't hurt (beyond burning a bigger hole in the pocket) the consumer. It is simply irrevelant to the consumer.
Lack of enough ASP for a device maker forces them to cobble up and install a heck of a lot of crap (malware, spyware, adware, sketchy services) on a device in order to generate a bit of revenue. Wouldn't you agree that might lead to a lesser user experience compared to, say, a Pixel 2?
I have said it many times. Most companies exist to make money. Very, very few aspire to make the most money.
The same applies to ASP.
You have people right here claiming 'but Apple makes the most money', 'Apple has the highest ASP', etc
My reply is 'and...?'
In the past I have given examples of companies that just want to provide a decent product at a decent price and do it profitably.
This particular industry has reached saturation point in the developed world, has seen slight contraction and consolidation. That is putting a squeeze on the smaller fish in the pond but there are still hundreds of companies making a profit even though some go out of business.
At the other end you have companies producing far better phones than even the iPhone X, at far lower prices, on much lower ASPs. Huawei invests 10% of its revenues each year in R&D and has more than 80,000 employees working in R&D around the globe. It counts profits in the billions but doesn't have the highest ASP. That R&D investment can lead to patents. Ironically, Apple licences a ton of patents to Apple. All this with a far lower ASP than Apple.
ASP is nice for investors. Consumers don't care. Perhaps they would care more if they were informed of how much of the purchase price went directly into Apple's tax free coffers and sat there for years on end.
You totally ignored the point of crapware as a substitute for revenue on low ASP models. That certainly has an effect on consumers, who likely care about malware, spyware, and adware, that comes with there "cheap" phone.
While I have innumerable Android handsets available to me in-store and online, I have yet to see any that jump out as the 'crapware' type that you mention.
If you had thought things through a little more, you may have resisted from posting that link. ;-)
It is mainly about phones that are returned -from retail. Unsold phones or phones returned to retail after initial sale. Not good.
It also states that a tiny percentage are sold abroad. Demand is high for lower priced iPhone X where phones such as the P20 Pro aren't as readily available. It might explain why I have only seen about three iPhone X in the wild since release in my neck of the woods.
Apple did $13B of sales for that quarter in China, and iPhone X was the best selling smartphone of all models in China for that quarter.
I'm thinking that the comment about 98% of sales are in the U.S. is very inaccurate, but sure, we will find out in a short time when Apple releases it's financials.
In numbers current as of last month, Android owns 78% of the worldwide market. That number pretty much speaks for itself.
Errrnt, nope. That's just the nonsense of worshipping at the church of market share. Android isn't a company or even a product, it's a splintered code base out in the wild. The vast majority of its market share is provided by cheap chinese knockoffs that nobody even cares about.
Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up. It's feasting on the lion's share of meat while the rest of the android hyenas fight amongst themselves for scraps of leather and bone. "But there are more hyenas than lions!" Uhh yeah, so what??
Android is a product. No doubt about it.
iOS is also splintered, just not as much.
The vast majority of market share is not taken by your so-called Chinese knock-offs.
Uhm, you are aware that Apple will be supporting iOS 12 all the way back to the iPhone 5s which arrived in September 2013; essentially every 64 bit iPhone model. Not much "splintered" there compared to all of the unique models, UX's and UI's, forks, and bundled spyware, that as a generalization, defines Android OS devices.
Certainly, specific device makers do better than others as far as Android OS "splintering".
No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit, but it is certainly true that Apple retains most of the profits of hardware device makers. What you don't like to acknowledge, much anyway, is the acquisition costs that those same Chinese device makers have to sink in order to increase unit sales.
But, yeah, I'm not supposed to talk about ASP 'cause it hurts the consumer.
Uhm, yes I'm aware of that. It won't change what I said.
"No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit"
But they did, and it is one of the reasons I commented. You quoted it yourself. If you click on 'show previous quotes' you will see this:
"Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up"
You are correct, though.
ASP (you're talking specifically about high ASP) doesn't hurt (beyond burning a bigger hole in the pocket) the consumer. It is simply irrevelant to the consumer.
Lack of enough ASP for a device maker forces them to cobble up and install a heck of a lot of crap (malware, spyware, adware, sketchy services) on a device in order to generate a bit of revenue. Wouldn't you agree that might lead to a lesser user experience compared to, say, a Pixel 2?
I have said it many times. Most companies exist to make money. Very, very few aspire to make the most money.
The same applies to ASP.
You have people right here claiming 'but Apple makes the most money', 'Apple has the highest ASP', etc
My reply is 'and...?'
In the past I have given examples of companies that just want to provide a decent product at a decent price and do it profitably.
This particular industry has reached saturation point in the developed world, has seen slight contraction and consolidation. That is putting a squeeze on the smaller fish in the pond but there are still hundreds of companies making a profit even though some go out of business.
At the other end you have companies producing far better phones than even the iPhone X, at far lower prices, on much lower ASPs. Huawei invests 10% of its revenues each year in R&D and has more than 80,000 employees working in R&D around the globe. It counts profits in the billions but doesn't have the highest ASP. That R&D investment can lead to patents. Ironically, Apple licences a ton of patents to Apple. All this with a far lower ASP than Apple.
ASP is nice for investors. Consumers don't care. Perhaps they would care more if they were informed of how much of the purchase price went directly into Apple's tax free coffers and sat there for years on end.
None of those phones are much better than an iPhone. They’re not even better.
but what you, and the cheerleaders for those Chinese companies either don’t know, or won’t acknowledge, is that they get under priced loans from Chinese government owned, or controlled banks. They often aren’t required to repay these loans, and they get subsidies as well. Most are losing money, some very badly. And who knows just what they get from the Chinese government industrial spying? As we know, almost all of Apple’s car project came close to getting stolen.It’s not an even playing field. Those low prices aren’t realworld.
huawei in particular, is partly controlled directly by the Chinese government.
That article has its errors as well, which I pointed out there. But they are right, Google helped HTC to thrive for a while after Windows Phone failed, by having them do the early Android phones. It was the failure of HTC’s management to build that success into a lasting business.
In numbers current as of last month, Android owns 78% of the worldwide market. That number pretty much speaks for itself.
Errrnt, nope. That's just the nonsense of worshipping at the church of market share. Android isn't a company or even a product, it's a splintered code base out in the wild. The vast majority of its market share is provided by cheap chinese knockoffs that nobody even cares about.
Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up. It's feasting on the lion's share of meat while the rest of the android hyenas fight amongst themselves for scraps of leather and bone. "But there are more hyenas than lions!" Uhh yeah, so what??
Android is a product. No doubt about it.
iOS is also splintered, just not as much.
The vast majority of market share is not taken by your so-called Chinese knock-offs.
Uhm, you are aware that Apple will be supporting iOS 12 all the way back to the iPhone 5s which arrived in September 2013; essentially every 64 bit iPhone model. Not much "splintered" there compared to all of the unique models, UX's and UI's, forks, and bundled spyware, that as a generalization, defines Android OS devices.
Certainly, specific device makers do better than others as far as Android OS "splintering".
No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit, but it is certainly true that Apple retains most of the profits of hardware device makers. What you don't like to acknowledge, much anyway, is the acquisition costs that those same Chinese device makers have to sink in order to increase unit sales.
But, yeah, I'm not supposed to talk about ASP 'cause it hurts the consumer.
Uhm, yes I'm aware of that. It won't change what I said.
"No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit"
But they did, and it is one of the reasons I commented. You quoted it yourself. If you click on 'show previous quotes' you will see this:
"Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up"
You are correct, though.
ASP (you're talking specifically about high ASP) doesn't hurt (beyond burning a bigger hole in the pocket) the consumer. It is simply irrevelant to the consumer.
Lack of enough ASP for a device maker forces them to cobble up and install a heck of a lot of crap (malware, spyware, adware, sketchy services) on a device in order to generate a bit of revenue. Wouldn't you agree that might lead to a lesser user experience compared to, say, a Pixel 2?
I have said it many times. Most companies exist to make money. Very, very few aspire to make the most money.
The same applies to ASP.
You have people right here claiming 'but Apple makes the most money', 'Apple has the highest ASP', etc
My reply is 'and...?'
In the past I have given examples of companies that just want to provide a decent product at a decent price and do it profitably.
This particular industry has reached saturation point in the developed world, has seen slight contraction and consolidation. That is putting a squeeze on the smaller fish in the pond but there are still hundreds of companies making a profit even though some go out of business.
At the other end you have companies producing far better phones than even the iPhone X, at far lower prices, on much lower ASPs. Huawei invests 10% of its revenues each year in R&D and has more than 80,000 employees working in R&D around the globe. It counts profits in the billions but doesn't have the highest ASP. That R&D investment can lead to patents. Ironically, Apple licences a ton of patents to Apple. All this with a far lower ASP than Apple.
ASP is nice for investors. Consumers don't care. Perhaps they would care more if they were informed of how much of the purchase price went directly into Apple's tax free coffers and sat there for years on end.
You totally ignored the point of crapware as a substitute for revenue on low ASP models. That certainly has an effect on consumers, who likely care about malware, spyware, and adware, that comes with there "cheap" phone.
While I have innumerable Android handsets available to me in-store and online, I have yet to see any that jump out as the 'crapware' type that you mention.
If you had thought things through a little more, you may have resisted from posting that link. ;-)
It is mainly about phones that are returned -from retail. Unsold phones or phones returned to retail after initial sale. Not good.
It also states that a tiny percentage are sold abroad. Demand is high for lower priced iPhone X where phones such as the P20 Pro aren't as readily available. It might explain why I have only seen about three iPhone X in the wild since release in my neck of the woods.
That’s just wrong. Apple sells a lot of phones abroad, just not in the high percentage as the US, except for Japan.
In numbers current as of last month, Android owns 78% of the worldwide market. That number pretty much speaks for itself.
Errrnt, nope. That's just the nonsense of worshipping at the church of market share. Android isn't a company or even a product, it's a splintered code base out in the wild. The vast majority of its market share is provided by cheap chinese knockoffs that nobody even cares about.
Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up. It's feasting on the lion's share of meat while the rest of the android hyenas fight amongst themselves for scraps of leather and bone. "But there are more hyenas than lions!" Uhh yeah, so what??
Android is a product. No doubt about it.
iOS is also splintered, just not as much.
The vast majority of market share is not taken by your so-called Chinese knock-offs.
Gosh I hope you don’t read the paper. What do you do when you hit th editorial section?
Generally ignore it.
it bothers me here because it lowers the reputation of the site as “just an isheep” site. I get that at other sites. Professional writing should be professional.
Are you confusing news coverage, reviews, and editorials?
In numbers current as of last month, Android owns 78% of the worldwide market. That number pretty much speaks for itself.
Errrnt, nope. That's just the nonsense of worshipping at the church of market share. Android isn't a company or even a product, it's a splintered code base out in the wild. The vast majority of its market share is provided by cheap chinese knockoffs that nobody even cares about.
Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up. It's feasting on the lion's share of meat while the rest of the android hyenas fight amongst themselves for scraps of leather and bone. "But there are more hyenas than lions!" Uhh yeah, so what??
Android is a product. No doubt about it.
iOS is also splintered, just not as much.
The vast majority of market share is not taken by your so-called Chinese knock-offs.
Just about 70% of the entire smartphones industries profits, with 50% of the total sales dollars, with Samsung taking up most of the rest of the profits.
That's far more realistic.
July through September last year it went down to 60%. After X it went up to around 86% for a short period. I think your guesstimate could be on or around the sweet spot right now.
You’re quibbling. That is still, by any metric, the lion’s share of the profit as I said. Your chinese knockoffs are fighting for gristle.
In numbers current as of last month, Android owns 78% of the worldwide market. That number pretty much speaks for itself.
Errrnt, nope. That's just the nonsense of worshipping at the church of market share. Android isn't a company or even a product, it's a splintered code base out in the wild. The vast majority of its market share is provided by cheap chinese knockoffs that nobody even cares about.
Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up. It's feasting on the lion's share of meat while the rest of the android hyenas fight amongst themselves for scraps of leather and bone. "But there are more hyenas than lions!" Uhh yeah, so what??
Android is a product. No doubt about it.
iOS is also splintered, just not as much.
The vast majority of market share is not taken by your so-called Chinese knock-offs.
Uhm, you are aware that Apple will be supporting iOS 12 all the way back to the iPhone 5s which arrived in September 2013; essentially every 64 bit iPhone model. Not much "splintered" there compared to all of the unique models, UX's and UI's, forks, and bundled spyware, that as a generalization, defines Android OS devices.
Certainly, specific device makers do better than others as far as Android OS "splintering".
No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit, but it is certainly true that Apple retains most of the profits of hardware device makers. What you don't like to acknowledge, much anyway, is the acquisition costs that those same Chinese device makers have to sink in order to increase unit sales.
But, yeah, I'm not supposed to talk about ASP 'cause it hurts the consumer.
Uhm, yes I'm aware of that. It won't change what I said.
"No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit"
But they did, and it is one of the reasons I commented. You quoted it yourself. If you click on 'show previous quotes' you will see this:
"Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up"
You are correct, though.
ASP (you're talking specifically about high ASP) doesn't hurt (beyond burning a bigger hole in the pocket) the consumer. It is simply irrevelant to the consumer.
Lack of enough ASP for a device maker forces them to cobble up and install a heck of a lot of crap (malware, spyware, adware, sketchy services) on a device in order to generate a bit of revenue. Wouldn't you agree that might lead to a lesser user experience compared to, say, a Pixel 2?
I have said it many times. Most companies exist to make money. Very, very few aspire to make the most money.
The same applies to ASP.
You have people right here claiming 'but Apple makes the most money', 'Apple has the highest ASP', etc
My reply is 'and...?'
In the past I have given examples of companies that just want to provide a decent product at a decent price and do it profitably.
This particular industry has reached saturation point in the developed world, has seen slight contraction and consolidation. That is putting a squeeze on the smaller fish in the pond but there are still hundreds of companies making a profit even though some go out of business.
At the other end you have companies producing far better phones than even the iPhone X, at far lower prices, on much lower ASPs. Huawei invests 10% of its revenues each year in R&D and has more than 80,000 employees working in R&D around the globe. It counts profits in the billions but doesn't have the highest ASP. That R&D investment can lead to patents. Ironically, Apple licences a ton of patents to Apple. All this with a far lower ASP than Apple.
ASP is nice for investors. Consumers don't care. Perhaps they would care more if they were informed of how much of the purchase price went directly into Apple's tax free coffers and sat there for years on end.
None of those phones are much better than an iPhone. They’re not even better.
but what you, and the cheerleaders for those Chinese companies either don’t know, or won’t acknowledge, is that they get under priced loans from Chinese government owned, or controlled banks. They often aren’t required to repay these loans, and they get subsidies as well. Most are losing money, some very badly. And who knows just what they get from the Chinese government industrial spying? As we know, almost all of Apple’s car project came close to getting stolen.It’s not an even playing field. Those low prices aren’t realworld.
huawei in particular, is partly controlled directly by the Chinese government.
That's a lot of speculation there. Throw me some links to support it at least.
Huawei has constantly claimed that its only involvement with the Chinese government is that required by law. Just like any other company operating in China. Huawei is wholly owned by its employees (those that participate in the share scheme).
The entire Spanish banking system was bailed out using taxpayers' money a few years ago. The US is no different when it comes to helping out US companies. The defacto ban on Huawei has no evidence of any kind to support it and Huawei has presented a 100 page rebuttal of any suspicions:
"Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. (“Huawei”) applaud
the Commission’s objectives of protecting the nation’s communications networks and supply chain, but the mechanism by which the Commission aims to do so—i.e., blacklisting a handful of suppliers—is both improper and imprudent for multiple reasons. This proposal exceeds the statutory authority granted to the Commission; is arbitrary and capricious; will cause costs far in excess of any slight benefits; violates constitutional and statutory procedural requirements; and relies on unverified and unsupportable factual allegations. The Commission should not adopt its proposed rule."
That decision has more to do with protectionism than national security. Huawei handsets are not banned. Carriers have been arm twisted into backing out of distribution deals according to some sources.
The criticism of Huawei's involvement with US universities is just absurd. This is the rebuttal:
Are you saying the P20 Pro is not better than the iPhone X? How are you defining better?
It is better on price It is better on modem It is better on battery It is better on capacity It is better on AI It is better on camera It has dual SIM, dual VoLTE, better location tracking, better cell handover, desktop mode etc.
Put an iPhone X and a P20 Pro side by side and ask people which one looks better from a shell design perspective.
Save that last point, the rest are basically objective assessments which can be consulted through online searches.
The superior Mate RS has 512GB of internal storage and uses aerospace cooling technology with microcapsule phase change materials inside and an inscreen fingerprint scanner etc.
Personal taste and opinion excepted, you will find general consensus leaning to the P20 Pro in this case. That doesn't mean the iPhone X is bad. Some will prefer it or a Samsung or a Pixel but when you look at what you are getting in key areas (like the ones listed above), the iPhone does come up short in many areas.
In numbers current as of last month, Android owns 78% of the worldwide market. That number pretty much speaks for itself.
Errrnt, nope. That's just the nonsense of worshipping at the church of market share. Android isn't a company or even a product, it's a splintered code base out in the wild. The vast majority of its market share is provided by cheap chinese knockoffs that nobody even cares about.
Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up. It's feasting on the lion's share of meat while the rest of the android hyenas fight amongst themselves for scraps of leather and bone. "But there are more hyenas than lions!" Uhh yeah, so what??
Android is a product. No doubt about it.
iOS is also splintered, just not as much.
The vast majority of market share is not taken by your so-called Chinese knock-offs.
Uhm, you are aware that Apple will be supporting iOS 12 all the way back to the iPhone 5s which arrived in September 2013; essentially every 64 bit iPhone model. Not much "splintered" there compared to all of the unique models, UX's and UI's, forks, and bundled spyware, that as a generalization, defines Android OS devices.
Certainly, specific device makers do better than others as far as Android OS "splintering".
No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit, but it is certainly true that Apple retains most of the profits of hardware device makers. What you don't like to acknowledge, much anyway, is the acquisition costs that those same Chinese device makers have to sink in order to increase unit sales.
But, yeah, I'm not supposed to talk about ASP 'cause it hurts the consumer.
Uhm, yes I'm aware of that. It won't change what I said.
"No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit"
But they did, and it is one of the reasons I commented. You quoted it yourself. If you click on 'show previous quotes' you will see this:
"Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up"
You are correct, though.
ASP (you're talking specifically about high ASP) doesn't hurt (beyond burning a bigger hole in the pocket) the consumer. It is simply irrevelant to the consumer.
Lack of enough ASP for a device maker forces them to cobble up and install a heck of a lot of crap (malware, spyware, adware, sketchy services) on a device in order to generate a bit of revenue. Wouldn't you agree that might lead to a lesser user experience compared to, say, a Pixel 2?
I have said it many times. Most companies exist to make money. Very, very few aspire to make the most money.
The same applies to ASP.
You have people right here claiming 'but Apple makes the most money', 'Apple has the highest ASP', etc
My reply is 'and...?'
In the past I have given examples of companies that just want to provide a decent product at a decent price and do it profitably.
This particular industry has reached saturation point in the developed world, has seen slight contraction and consolidation. That is putting a squeeze on the smaller fish in the pond but there are still hundreds of companies making a profit even though some go out of business.
At the other end you have companies producing far better phones than even the iPhone X, at far lower prices, on much lower ASPs. Huawei invests 10% of its revenues each year in R&D and has more than 80,000 employees working in R&D around the globe. It counts profits in the billions but doesn't have the highest ASP. That R&D investment can lead to patents. Ironically, Apple licences a ton of patents to Apple. All this with a far lower ASP than Apple.
ASP is nice for investors. Consumers don't care. Perhaps they would care more if they were informed of how much of the purchase price went directly into Apple's tax free coffers and sat there for years on end.
You totally ignored the point of crapware as a substitute for revenue on low ASP models. That certainly has an effect on consumers, who likely care about malware, spyware, and adware, that comes with there "cheap" phone.
While I have innumerable Android handsets available to me in-store and online, I have yet to see any that jump out as the 'crapware' type that you mention.
If you had thought things through a little more, you may have resisted from posting that link. ;-)
It is mainly about phones that are returned -from retail. Unsold phones or phones returned to retail after initial sale. Not good.
It also states that a tiny percentage are sold abroad. Demand is high for lower priced iPhone X where phones such as the P20 Pro aren't as readily available. It might explain why I have only seen about three iPhone X in the wild since release in my neck of the woods.
That’s just wrong. Apple sells a lot of phones abroad, just not in the high percentage as the US, except for Japan.
Could be. I am simply commenting on what was said and my own personal experience travelling around the city most of the day.
In numbers current as of last month, Android owns 78% of the worldwide market. That number pretty much speaks for itself.
Errrnt, nope. That's just the nonsense of worshipping at the church of market share. Android isn't a company or even a product, it's a splintered code base out in the wild. The vast majority of its market share is provided by cheap chinese knockoffs that nobody even cares about.
Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up. It's feasting on the lion's share of meat while the rest of the android hyenas fight amongst themselves for scraps of leather and bone. "But there are more hyenas than lions!" Uhh yeah, so what??
Android is a product. No doubt about it.
iOS is also splintered, just not as much.
The vast majority of market share is not taken by your so-called Chinese knock-offs.
Just about 70% of the entire smartphones industries profits, with 50% of the total sales dollars, with Samsung taking up most of the rest of the profits.
That's far more realistic.
July through September last year it went down to 60%. After X it went up to around 86% for a short period. I think your guesstimate could be on or around the sweet spot right now.
You’re quibbling. That is still, by any metric, the lion’s share of the profit as I said. Your chinese knockoffs are fighting for gristle.
You just left a lot of readers perplexed. LOL.
You launch a string of blatant falsehoods and when I point them out, I'm quibbling?
Why not just be accurate from the get go?
Just to be clear, yes, it is the lion's share but the lion's share is not ALL, is it? Also, if you dig a little deeper, that 60% I mentioned represented a huge 25% drop YoY from 2016. There is obviously some instability in the profit side of things.
In numbers current as of last month, Android owns 78% of the worldwide market. That number pretty much speaks for itself.
Errrnt, nope. That's just the nonsense of worshipping at the church of market share. Android isn't a company or even a product, it's a splintered code base out in the wild. The vast majority of its market share is provided by cheap chinese knockoffs that nobody even cares about.
Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up. It's feasting on the lion's share of meat while the rest of the android hyenas fight amongst themselves for scraps of leather and bone. "But there are more hyenas than lions!" Uhh yeah, so what??
Android is a product. No doubt about it.
iOS is also splintered, just not as much.
The vast majority of market share is not taken by your so-called Chinese knock-offs.
Uhm, you are aware that Apple will be supporting iOS 12 all the way back to the iPhone 5s which arrived in September 2013; essentially every 64 bit iPhone model. Not much "splintered" there compared to all of the unique models, UX's and UI's, forks, and bundled spyware, that as a generalization, defines Android OS devices.
Certainly, specific device makers do better than others as far as Android OS "splintering".
No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit, but it is certainly true that Apple retains most of the profits of hardware device makers. What you don't like to acknowledge, much anyway, is the acquisition costs that those same Chinese device makers have to sink in order to increase unit sales.
But, yeah, I'm not supposed to talk about ASP 'cause it hurts the consumer.
Uhm, yes I'm aware of that. It won't change what I said.
"No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit"
But they did, and it is one of the reasons I commented. You quoted it yourself. If you click on 'show previous quotes' you will see this:
"Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up"
You are correct, though.
ASP (you're talking specifically about high ASP) doesn't hurt (beyond burning a bigger hole in the pocket) the consumer. It is simply irrevelant to the consumer.
Lack of enough ASP for a device maker forces them to cobble up and install a heck of a lot of crap (malware, spyware, adware, sketchy services) on a device in order to generate a bit of revenue. Wouldn't you agree that might lead to a lesser user experience compared to, say, a Pixel 2?
I have said it many times. Most companies exist to make money. Very, very few aspire to make the most money.
The same applies to ASP.
You have people right here claiming 'but Apple makes the most money', 'Apple has the highest ASP', etc
My reply is 'and...?'
In the past I have given examples of companies that just want to provide a decent product at a decent price and do it profitably.
This particular industry has reached saturation point in the developed world, has seen slight contraction and consolidation. That is putting a squeeze on the smaller fish in the pond but there are still hundreds of companies making a profit even though some go out of business.
At the other end you have companies producing far better phones than even the iPhone X, at far lower prices, on much lower ASPs. Huawei invests 10% of its revenues each year in R&D and has more than 80,000 employees working in R&D around the globe. It counts profits in the billions but doesn't have the highest ASP. That R&D investment can lead to patents. Ironically, Apple licences a ton of patents to Apple. All this with a far lower ASP than Apple.
ASP is nice for investors. Consumers don't care. Perhaps they would care more if they were informed of how much of the purchase price went directly into Apple's tax free coffers and sat there for years on end.
You totally ignored the point of crapware as a substitute for revenue on low ASP models. That certainly has an effect on consumers, who likely care about malware, spyware, and adware, that comes with there "cheap" phone.
While I have innumerable Android handsets available to me in-store and online, I have yet to see any that jump out as the 'crapware' type that you mention.
If you had thought things through a little more, you may have resisted from posting that link. ;-)
It is mainly about phones that are returned -from retail. Unsold phones or phones returned to retail after initial sale. Not good.
It also states that a tiny percentage are sold abroad. Demand is high for lower priced iPhone X where phones such as the P20 Pro aren't as readily available. It might explain why I have only seen about three iPhone X in the wild since release in my neck of the woods.
That’s just wrong. Apple sells a lot of phones abroad, just not in the high percentage as the US, except for Japan.
From 2016 to now I would expect the Samsung Profit picture changed greatly because 2016 was the year of the exploding Notes and now Samsung gets a nice little extra profit on each iPhone X sold because of the OLED screen.
I used to like the HTC ONE M7 and M8 designs but never bought one because it would have meant using Android. I due remember that the phones were criticized for their Camera which is now one of the most important features of a phone.
In numbers current as of last month, Android owns 78% of the worldwide market. That number pretty much speaks for itself.
Errrnt, nope. That's just the nonsense of worshipping at the church of market share. Android isn't a company or even a product, it's a splintered code base out in the wild. The vast majority of its market share is provided by cheap chinese knockoffs that nobody even cares about.
Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up. It's feasting on the lion's share of meat while the rest of the android hyenas fight amongst themselves for scraps of leather and bone. "But there are more hyenas than lions!" Uhh yeah, so what??
Android is a product. No doubt about it.
iOS is also splintered, just not as much.
The vast majority of market share is not taken by your so-called Chinese knock-offs.
Android is not a product sold by any one company, no. It’s a free codebase that can be forked and used by anyone.
Apple certainly owns the smartphone sector profits.
Yes and no. Google is in a court fight about a company, I don’t remember which one, trying to use forked AOSP code. And they forbid any company making phones with “official” Android from making phones with AOSP.
despite that we’re constantly told that “Android” is free and open to anyone, it’s not really true. Google has a very firm amount of control over exactly when, where and how any of it can be used, including the supposedly open source AOSP variant, which is actually on more phones around the world than the official Android version. When we read about “Android” having about an 80% worldwide market share, what’s actually the truth is that AOSP has about a 50% market share and the official Android has about a 30% market share.
of course, with AOSP, phone makers and their customers have no official access to the Google Play store, Google search, maps and other features. But those have been so successfully replaced that they replacements are often as widespread as the originals.
Gosh I hope you don’t read the paper. What do you do when you hit th editorial section?
Generally ignore it.
it bothers me here because it lowers the reputation of the site as “just an isheep” site. I get that at other sites. Professional writing should be professional.
Are you confusing news coverage, reviews, and editorials?
Im not confusing anything. It’s the tone, no matter what the article is supposed to be. You simply don’t deliberately denegrate companies that are competitors, just because...
you can state numbers to back up statements, you can say whether they’re successful or not. But being pejorative in and article is simply bad writing. I know it’s allowed, and maybe even encourages, for the “fans” ho want to eat that kind of Hong. But it brings down the level of everything else, particularly if it seems to be approved by the site itself.
usually articles with strong opinions have a disclaimer at the bottom, stating that the opinions are that of the author, and don’t necessarily reflect the official opinion of the publication.
if in these cases, it does, then that reflects badly on those who run the site.
In numbers current as of last month, Android owns 78% of the worldwide market. That number pretty much speaks for itself.
Errrnt, nope. That's just the nonsense of worshipping at the church of market share. Android isn't a company or even a product, it's a splintered code base out in the wild. The vast majority of its market share is provided by cheap chinese knockoffs that nobody even cares about.
Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up. It's feasting on the lion's share of meat while the rest of the android hyenas fight amongst themselves for scraps of leather and bone. "But there are more hyenas than lions!" Uhh yeah, so what??
Android is a product. No doubt about it.
iOS is also splintered, just not as much.
The vast majority of market share is not taken by your so-called Chinese knock-offs.
Uhm, you are aware that Apple will be supporting iOS 12 all the way back to the iPhone 5s which arrived in September 2013; essentially every 64 bit iPhone model. Not much "splintered" there compared to all of the unique models, UX's and UI's, forks, and bundled spyware, that as a generalization, defines Android OS devices.
Certainly, specific device makers do better than others as far as Android OS "splintering".
No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit, but it is certainly true that Apple retains most of the profits of hardware device makers. What you don't like to acknowledge, much anyway, is the acquisition costs that those same Chinese device makers have to sink in order to increase unit sales.
But, yeah, I'm not supposed to talk about ASP 'cause it hurts the consumer.
Uhm, yes I'm aware of that. It won't change what I said.
"No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit"
But they did, and it is one of the reasons I commented. You quoted it yourself. If you click on 'show previous quotes' you will see this:
"Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up"
You are correct, though.
ASP (you're talking specifically about high ASP) doesn't hurt (beyond burning a bigger hole in the pocket) the consumer. It is simply irrevelant to the consumer.
Lack of enough ASP for a device maker forces them to cobble up and install a heck of a lot of crap (malware, spyware, adware, sketchy services) on a device in order to generate a bit of revenue. Wouldn't you agree that might lead to a lesser user experience compared to, say, a Pixel 2?
I have said it many times. Most companies exist to make money. Very, very few aspire to make the most money.
The same applies to ASP.
You have people right here claiming 'but Apple makes the most money', 'Apple has the highest ASP', etc
My reply is 'and...?'
In the past I have given examples of companies that just want to provide a decent product at a decent price and do it profitably.
This particular industry has reached saturation point in the developed world, has seen slight contraction and consolidation. That is putting a squeeze on the smaller fish in the pond but there are still hundreds of companies making a profit even though some go out of business.
At the other end you have companies producing far better phones than even the iPhone X, at far lower prices, on much lower ASPs. Huawei invests 10% of its revenues each year in R&D and has more than 80,000 employees working in R&D around the globe. It counts profits in the billions but doesn't have the highest ASP. That R&D investment can lead to patents. Ironically, Apple licences a ton of patents to Apple. All this with a far lower ASP than Apple.
ASP is nice for investors. Consumers don't care. Perhaps they would care more if they were informed of how much of the purchase price went directly into Apple's tax free coffers and sat there for years on end.
You totally ignored the point of crapware as a substitute for revenue on low ASP models. That certainly has an effect on consumers, who likely care about malware, spyware, and adware, that comes with there "cheap" phone.
While I have innumerable Android handsets available to me in-store and online, I have yet to see any that jump out as the 'crapware' type that you mention.
If you had thought things through a little more, you may have resisted from posting that link. ;-)
It is mainly about phones that are returned -from retail. Unsold phones or phones returned to retail after initial sale. Not good.
It also states that a tiny percentage are sold abroad. Demand is high for lower priced iPhone X where phones such as the P20 Pro aren't as readily available. It might explain why I have only seen about three iPhone X in the wild since release in my neck of the woods.
That’s just wrong. Apple sells a lot of phones abroad, just not in the high percentage as the US, except for Japan.
Could be. I am simply commenting on what was said and my own personal experience travelling around the city most of the day.
Not could be, definitely. Apple sells almost 65% of its products abroad. That’s fact, not supposition. What’s also fact is the the population of the US is what, about 6% of the worlds population? So selling most of their products outside of the US would result in you not seeing them nearly as much as in the US, except for a few countries whose iPhone percentage is higher than here, such as Australia and Japan, and GB, where it’s almost as high.
In numbers current as of last month, Android owns 78% of the worldwide market. That number pretty much speaks for itself.
Errrnt, nope. That's just the nonsense of worshipping at the church of market share. Android isn't a company or even a product, it's a splintered code base out in the wild. The vast majority of its market share is provided by cheap chinese knockoffs that nobody even cares about.
Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up. It's feasting on the lion's share of meat while the rest of the android hyenas fight amongst themselves for scraps of leather and bone. "But there are more hyenas than lions!" Uhh yeah, so what??
Android is a product. No doubt about it.
iOS is also splintered, just not as much.
The vast majority of market share is not taken by your so-called Chinese knock-offs.
Uhm, you are aware that Apple will be supporting iOS 12 all the way back to the iPhone 5s which arrived in September 2013; essentially every 64 bit iPhone model. Not much "splintered" there compared to all of the unique models, UX's and UI's, forks, and bundled spyware, that as a generalization, defines Android OS devices.
Certainly, specific device makers do better than others as far as Android OS "splintering".
No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit, but it is certainly true that Apple retains most of the profits of hardware device makers. What you don't like to acknowledge, much anyway, is the acquisition costs that those same Chinese device makers have to sink in order to increase unit sales.
But, yeah, I'm not supposed to talk about ASP 'cause it hurts the consumer.
Uhm, yes I'm aware of that. It won't change what I said.
"No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit"
But they did, and it is one of the reasons I commented. You quoted it yourself. If you click on 'show previous quotes' you will see this:
"Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up"
You are correct, though.
ASP (you're talking specifically about high ASP) doesn't hurt (beyond burning a bigger hole in the pocket) the consumer. It is simply irrevelant to the consumer.
Lack of enough ASP for a device maker forces them to cobble up and install a heck of a lot of crap (malware, spyware, adware, sketchy services) on a device in order to generate a bit of revenue. Wouldn't you agree that might lead to a lesser user experience compared to, say, a Pixel 2?
I have said it many times. Most companies exist to make money. Very, very few aspire to make the most money.
The same applies to ASP.
You have people right here claiming 'but Apple makes the most money', 'Apple has the highest ASP', etc
My reply is 'and...?'
In the past I have given examples of companies that just want to provide a decent product at a decent price and do it profitably.
This particular industry has reached saturation point in the developed world, has seen slight contraction and consolidation. That is putting a squeeze on the smaller fish in the pond but there are still hundreds of companies making a profit even though some go out of business.
At the other end you have companies producing far better phones than even the iPhone X, at far lower prices, on much lower ASPs. Huawei invests 10% of its revenues each year in R&D and has more than 80,000 employees working in R&D around the globe. It counts profits in the billions but doesn't have the highest ASP. That R&D investment can lead to patents. Ironically, Apple licences a ton of patents to Apple. All this with a far lower ASP than Apple.
ASP is nice for investors. Consumers don't care. Perhaps they would care more if they were informed of how much of the purchase price went directly into Apple's tax free coffers and sat there for years on end.
You totally ignored the point of crapware as a substitute for revenue on low ASP models. That certainly has an effect on consumers, who likely care about malware, spyware, and adware, that comes with there "cheap" phone.
While I have innumerable Android handsets available to me in-store and online, I have yet to see any that jump out as the 'crapware' type that you mention.
If you had thought things through a little more, you may have resisted from posting that link. ;-)
It is mainly about phones that are returned -from retail. Unsold phones or phones returned to retail after initial sale. Not good.
It also states that a tiny percentage are sold abroad. Demand is high for lower priced iPhone X where phones such as the P20 Pro aren't as readily available. It might explain why I have only seen about three iPhone X in the wild since release in my neck of the woods.
That’s just wrong. Apple sells a lot of phones abroad, just not in the high percentage as the US, except for Japan.
From 2016 to now I would expect the Samsung Profit picture changed greatly because 2016 was the year of the exploding Notes and now Samsung gets a nice little extra profit on each iPhone X sold because of the OLED screen.
I used to like the HTC ONE M7 and M8 designs but never bought one because it would have meant using Android. I due remember that the phones were criticized for their Camera which is now one of the most important features of a phone.
Samsung has never made as much money on their fkagships as Apple because even though the list prices are the same, apparently, with the actual selling prices of Galaxy models, including the Note (which usually sells about 5-7 million a year, worldwide) being much lower, Samsung is squeezed by that. There is no way retailers are going to sell phones and can make no profit, so Samsung must be subsidizing those low prices.
Usually, after just a few weeks after they come out, Galaxy models are going for a buy one, get one for 50% off, and even a buy one and get one for free, or buy one and get a free Galaxy Tab 3 tablet. These are independent from the carriers who often bring in customers on 2 year contracts (yes, many people still do that) by giving a flagship phone at a big discount, or for “free” (it’s not).
these numbers don’t count the sales and profits from Samsung electronics parts sales. They’re exclusively from the selling of phones. It’s like counting iPad and Mac sales in iPhone sales numbers. No.
In numbers current as of last month, Android owns 78% of the worldwide market. That number pretty much speaks for itself.
Errrnt, nope. That's just the nonsense of worshipping at the church of market share. Android isn't a company or even a product, it's a splintered code base out in the wild. The vast majority of its market share is provided by cheap chinese knockoffs that nobody even cares about.
Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up. It's feasting on the lion's share of meat while the rest of the android hyenas fight amongst themselves for scraps of leather and bone. "But there are more hyenas than lions!" Uhh yeah, so what??
Android is a product. No doubt about it.
iOS is also splintered, just not as much.
The vast majority of market share is not taken by your so-called Chinese knock-offs.
Uhm, you are aware that Apple will be supporting iOS 12 all the way back to the iPhone 5s which arrived in September 2013; essentially every 64 bit iPhone model. Not much "splintered" there compared to all of the unique models, UX's and UI's, forks, and bundled spyware, that as a generalization, defines Android OS devices.
Certainly, specific device makers do better than others as far as Android OS "splintering".
No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit, but it is certainly true that Apple retains most of the profits of hardware device makers. What you don't like to acknowledge, much anyway, is the acquisition costs that those same Chinese device makers have to sink in order to increase unit sales.
But, yeah, I'm not supposed to talk about ASP 'cause it hurts the consumer.
Uhm, yes I'm aware of that. It won't change what I said.
"No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit"
But they did, and it is one of the reasons I commented. You quoted it yourself. If you click on 'show previous quotes' you will see this:
"Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up"
You are correct, though.
ASP (you're talking specifically about high ASP) doesn't hurt (beyond burning a bigger hole in the pocket) the consumer. It is simply irrevelant to the consumer.
Lack of enough ASP for a device maker forces them to cobble up and install a heck of a lot of crap (malware, spyware, adware, sketchy services) on a device in order to generate a bit of revenue. Wouldn't you agree that might lead to a lesser user experience compared to, say, a Pixel 2?
I have said it many times. Most companies exist to make money. Very, very few aspire to make the most money.
The same applies to ASP.
You have people right here claiming 'but Apple makes the most money', 'Apple has the highest ASP', etc
My reply is 'and...?'
In the past I have given examples of companies that just want to provide a decent product at a decent price and do it profitably.
This particular industry has reached saturation point in the developed world, has seen slight contraction and consolidation. That is putting a squeeze on the smaller fish in the pond but there are still hundreds of companies making a profit even though some go out of business.
At the other end you have companies producing far better phones than even the iPhone X, at far lower prices, on much lower ASPs. Huawei invests 10% of its revenues each year in R&D and has more than 80,000 employees working in R&D around the globe. It counts profits in the billions but doesn't have the highest ASP. That R&D investment can lead to patents. Ironically, Apple licences a ton of patents to Apple. All this with a far lower ASP than Apple.
ASP is nice for investors. Consumers don't care. Perhaps they would care more if they were informed of how much of the purchase price went directly into Apple's tax free coffers and sat there for years on end.
You totally ignored the point of crapware as a substitute for revenue on low ASP models. That certainly has an effect on consumers, who likely care about malware, spyware, and adware, that comes with there "cheap" phone.
While I have innumerable Android handsets available to me in-store and online, I have yet to see any that jump out as the 'crapware' type that you mention.
If you had thought things through a little more, you may have resisted from posting that link. ;-)
It is mainly about phones that are returned -from retail. Unsold phones or phones returned to retail after initial sale. Not good.
It also states that a tiny percentage are sold abroad. Demand is high for lower priced iPhone X where phones such as the P20 Pro aren't as readily available. It might explain why I have only seen about three iPhone X in the wild since release in my neck of the woods.
That’s just wrong. Apple sells a lot of phones abroad, just not in the high percentage as the US, except for Japan.
From 2016 to now I would expect the Samsung Profit picture changed greatly because 2016 was the year of the exploding Notes and now Samsung gets a nice little extra profit on each iPhone X sold because of the OLED screen.
I used to like the HTC ONE M7 and M8 designs but never bought one because it would have meant using Android. I due remember that the phones were criticized for their Camera which is now one of the most important features of a phone.
Samsung has never made as much money on their fkagships as Apple because even though the list prices are the same, apparently, with the actual selling prices of Galaxy models, including the Note (which usually sells about 5-7 million a year, worldwide) being much lower, Samsung is squeezed by that. There is no way retailers are going to sell phones and can make no profit, so Samsung must be subsidizing those low prices.
Usually, after just a few weeks after they come out, Galaxy models are going for a buy one, get one for 50% off, and even a buy one and get one for free, or buy one and get a free Galaxy Tab 3 tablet. These are independent from the carriers who often bring in customers on 2 year contracts (yes, many people still do that) by giving a flagship phone at a big discount, or for “free” (it’s not).
these numbers don’t count the sales and profits from Samsung electronics parts sales. They’re exclusively from the selling of phones. It’s like counting iPad and Mac sales in iPhone sales numbers. No.
Mel, you might have missed news that Apple was requiring Japanese carriers to subsidize iPhones in order to keep prices artificially low and limit competitors ability to raise prices to a more profitable level. In Japan they've agreed to stop requiring it (among some other changes) to avoid an antitrust lawsuit. During the investigation it was determined that Apple had the same carrier rules mandating artificially low pricing in other regions including the US, and I've not seen anywhere that Apple was offering to eliminate that contractual requirement anywhere else tho they certainly could have. Then of course I wouldn't have expected Apple to announce it.
There's a lot of behind the scenes pricing trickery.... Give a little here but add it on elsewhere. No wonder consumers are fooled into taking "great deals" that turn out not so great if you look closely at the total out-of-pocket.
In numbers current as of last month, Android owns 78% of the worldwide market. That number pretty much speaks for itself.
Errrnt, nope. That's just the nonsense of worshipping at the church of market share. Android isn't a company or even a product, it's a splintered code base out in the wild. The vast majority of its market share is provided by cheap chinese knockoffs that nobody even cares about.
Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up. It's feasting on the lion's share of meat while the rest of the android hyenas fight amongst themselves for scraps of leather and bone. "But there are more hyenas than lions!" Uhh yeah, so what??
Android is a product. No doubt about it.
iOS is also splintered, just not as much.
The vast majority of market share is not taken by your so-called Chinese knock-offs.
Uhm, you are aware that Apple will be supporting iOS 12 all the way back to the iPhone 5s which arrived in September 2013; essentially every 64 bit iPhone model. Not much "splintered" there compared to all of the unique models, UX's and UI's, forks, and bundled spyware, that as a generalization, defines Android OS devices.
Certainly, specific device makers do better than others as far as Android OS "splintering".
No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit, but it is certainly true that Apple retains most of the profits of hardware device makers. What you don't like to acknowledge, much anyway, is the acquisition costs that those same Chinese device makers have to sink in order to increase unit sales.
But, yeah, I'm not supposed to talk about ASP 'cause it hurts the consumer.
Uhm, yes I'm aware of that. It won't change what I said.
"No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit"
But they did, and it is one of the reasons I commented. You quoted it yourself. If you click on 'show previous quotes' you will see this:
"Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up"
You are correct, though.
ASP (you're talking specifically about high ASP) doesn't hurt (beyond burning a bigger hole in the pocket) the consumer. It is simply irrevelant to the consumer.
Lack of enough ASP for a device maker forces them to cobble up and install a heck of a lot of crap (malware, spyware, adware, sketchy services) on a device in order to generate a bit of revenue. Wouldn't you agree that might lead to a lesser user experience compared to, say, a Pixel 2?
I have said it many times. Most companies exist to make money. Very, very few aspire to make the most money.
The same applies to ASP.
You have people right here claiming 'but Apple makes the most money', 'Apple has the highest ASP', etc
My reply is 'and...?'
In the past I have given examples of companies that just want to provide a decent product at a decent price and do it profitably.
This particular industry has reached saturation point in the developed world, has seen slight contraction and consolidation. That is putting a squeeze on the smaller fish in the pond but there are still hundreds of companies making a profit even though some go out of business.
At the other end you have companies producing far better phones than even the iPhone X, at far lower prices, on much lower ASPs. Huawei invests 10% of its revenues each year in R&D and has more than 80,000 employees working in R&D around the globe. It counts profits in the billions but doesn't have the highest ASP. That R&D investment can lead to patents. Ironically, Apple licences a ton of patents to Apple. All this with a far lower ASP than Apple.
ASP is nice for investors. Consumers don't care. Perhaps they would care more if they were informed of how much of the purchase price went directly into Apple's tax free coffers and sat there for years on end.
You totally ignored the point of crapware as a substitute for revenue on low ASP models. That certainly has an effect on consumers, who likely care about malware, spyware, and adware, that comes with there "cheap" phone.
While I have innumerable Android handsets available to me in-store and online, I have yet to see any that jump out as the 'crapware' type that you mention.
If you had thought things through a little more, you may have resisted from posting that link. ;-)
It is mainly about phones that are returned -from retail. Unsold phones or phones returned to retail after initial sale. Not good.
It also states that a tiny percentage are sold abroad. Demand is high for lower priced iPhone X where phones such as the P20 Pro aren't as readily available. It might explain why I have only seen about three iPhone X in the wild since release in my neck of the woods.
That’s just wrong. Apple sells a lot of phones abroad, just not in the high percentage as the US, except for Japan.
From 2016 to now I would expect the Samsung Profit picture changed greatly because 2016 was the year of the exploding Notes and now Samsung gets a nice little extra profit on each iPhone X sold because of the OLED screen.
I used to like the HTC ONE M7 and M8 designs but never bought one because it would have meant using Android. I due remember that the phones were criticized for their Camera which is now one of the most important features of a phone.
Samsung has never made as much money on their fkagships as Apple because even though the list prices are the same, apparently, with the actual selling prices of Galaxy models, including the Note (which usually sells about 5-7 million a year, worldwide) being much lower, Samsung is squeezed by that. There is no way retailers are going to sell phones and can make no profit, so Samsung must be subsidizing those low prices.
Usually, after just a few weeks after they come out, Galaxy models are going for a buy one, get one for 50% off, and even a buy one and get one for free, or buy one and get a free Galaxy Tab 3 tablet. These are independent from the carriers who often bring in customers on 2 year contracts (yes, many people still do that) by giving a flagship phone at a big discount, or for “free” (it’s not).
these numbers don’t count the sales and profits from Samsung electronics parts sales. They’re exclusively from the selling of phones. It’s like counting iPad and Mac sales in iPhone sales numbers. No.
Mel, you might have missed news that Apple was requiring Japanese carriers to subsidize iPhones in order to keep prices artificially low and limit competitors ability to raise prices to a more profitable level. In Japan they've agreed to stop requiring it (among some other changes) to avoid an antitrust lawsuit. During the investigation it was determined that Apple had the same carrier rules mandating artificially low pricing in other regions including the US, and I've not seen anywhere that Apple was offering to eliminate that contractual requirement anywhere else tho they certainly could have. I wouldn't have expected Apple to announce it.
There's a lot of behind the scenes pricing trickery.... Give a little here but add it on elsewhere. No wonder consumers are fooled into taking "great deals" that turn out not so great if you look closely at the total out-of-pocket.
It was also found that Apple wasn’t violating ang laws, which is why those suits were dropped. Investigations, usually at the behest of less successful companies are common. What matters is the result.
qe also have the investigations of Samsung over the years that show them illegally price fixing parts such as screens, NAND, RAM and other things that were ruled against them, costing them billions in fines over a period of time. That raised prices for everyone, including Apple. And the estimate of the prices they charge Apple for the i[gone X screens are about double of what they scare themselves. Some of that is due to the cost of cutting the screen for the notch, but that’s just a very small difference,
In numbers current as of last month, Android owns 78% of the worldwide market. That number pretty much speaks for itself.
Errrnt, nope. That's just the nonsense of worshipping at the church of market share. Android isn't a company or even a product, it's a splintered code base out in the wild. The vast majority of its market share is provided by cheap chinese knockoffs that nobody even cares about.
Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up. It's feasting on the lion's share of meat while the rest of the android hyenas fight amongst themselves for scraps of leather and bone. "But there are more hyenas than lions!" Uhh yeah, so what??
Android is a product. No doubt about it.
iOS is also splintered, just not as much.
The vast majority of market share is not taken by your so-called Chinese knock-offs.
Uhm, you are aware that Apple will be supporting iOS 12 all the way back to the iPhone 5s which arrived in September 2013; essentially every 64 bit iPhone model. Not much "splintered" there compared to all of the unique models, UX's and UI's, forks, and bundled spyware, that as a generalization, defines Android OS devices.
Certainly, specific device makers do better than others as far as Android OS "splintering".
No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit, but it is certainly true that Apple retains most of the profits of hardware device makers. What you don't like to acknowledge, much anyway, is the acquisition costs that those same Chinese device makers have to sink in order to increase unit sales.
But, yeah, I'm not supposed to talk about ASP 'cause it hurts the consumer.
Uhm, yes I'm aware of that. It won't change what I said.
"No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit"
But they did, and it is one of the reasons I commented. You quoted it yourself. If you click on 'show previous quotes' you will see this:
"Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up"
You are correct, though.
ASP (you're talking specifically about high ASP) doesn't hurt (beyond burning a bigger hole in the pocket) the consumer. It is simply irrevelant to the consumer.
Lack of enough ASP for a device maker forces them to cobble up and install a heck of a lot of crap (malware, spyware, adware, sketchy services) on a device in order to generate a bit of revenue. Wouldn't you agree that might lead to a lesser user experience compared to, say, a Pixel 2?
I have said it many times. Most companies exist to make money. Very, very few aspire to make the most money.
The same applies to ASP.
You have people right here claiming 'but Apple makes the most money', 'Apple has the highest ASP', etc
My reply is 'and...?'
In the past I have given examples of companies that just want to provide a decent product at a decent price and do it profitably.
This particular industry has reached saturation point in the developed world, has seen slight contraction and consolidation. That is putting a squeeze on the smaller fish in the pond but there are still hundreds of companies making a profit even though some go out of business.
At the other end you have companies producing far better phones than even the iPhone X, at far lower prices, on much lower ASPs. Huawei invests 10% of its revenues each year in R&D and has more than 80,000 employees working in R&D around the globe. It counts profits in the billions but doesn't have the highest ASP. That R&D investment can lead to patents. Ironically, Apple licences a ton of patents to Apple. All this with a far lower ASP than Apple.
ASP is nice for investors. Consumers don't care. Perhaps they would care more if they were informed of how much of the purchase price went directly into Apple's tax free coffers and sat there for years on end.
You totally ignored the point of crapware as a substitute for revenue on low ASP models. That certainly has an effect on consumers, who likely care about malware, spyware, and adware, that comes with there "cheap" phone.
While I have innumerable Android handsets available to me in-store and online, I have yet to see any that jump out as the 'crapware' type that you mention.
If you had thought things through a little more, you may have resisted from posting that link. ;-)
It is mainly about phones that are returned -from retail. Unsold phones or phones returned to retail after initial sale. Not good.
It also states that a tiny percentage are sold abroad. Demand is high for lower priced iPhone X where phones such as the P20 Pro aren't as readily available. It might explain why I have only seen about three iPhone X in the wild since release in my neck of the woods.
That’s just wrong. Apple sells a lot of phones abroad, just not in the high percentage as the US, except for Japan.
From 2016 to now I would expect the Samsung Profit picture changed greatly because 2016 was the year of the exploding Notes and now Samsung gets a nice little extra profit on each iPhone X sold because of the OLED screen.
I used to like the HTC ONE M7 and M8 designs but never bought one because it would have meant using Android. I due remember that the phones were criticized for their Camera which is now one of the most important features of a phone.
Samsung has never made as much money on their fkagships as Apple because even though the list prices are the same, apparently, with the actual selling prices of Galaxy models, including the Note (which usually sells about 5-7 million a year, worldwide) being much lower, Samsung is squeezed by that. There is no way retailers are going to sell phones and can make no profit, so Samsung must be subsidizing those low prices.
Usually, after just a few weeks after they come out, Galaxy models are going for a buy one, get one for 50% off, and even a buy one and get one for free, or buy one and get a free Galaxy Tab 3 tablet. These are independent from the carriers who often bring in customers on 2 year contracts (yes, many people still do that) by giving a flagship phone at a big discount, or for “free” (it’s not).
these numbers don’t count the sales and profits from Samsung electronics parts sales. They’re exclusively from the selling of phones. It’s like counting iPad and Mac sales in iPhone sales numbers. No.
Mel, you might have missed news that Apple was requiring Japanese carriers to subsidize iPhones in order to keep prices artificially low and limit competitors ability to raise prices to a more profitable level. In Japan they've agreed to stop requiring it (among some other changes) to avoid an antitrust lawsuit. During the investigation it was determined that Apple had the same carrier rules mandating artificially low pricing in other regions including the US, and I've not seen anywhere that Apple was offering to eliminate that contractual requirement anywhere else tho they certainly could have. I wouldn't have expected Apple to announce it.
There's a lot of behind the scenes pricing trickery.... Give a little here but add it on elsewhere. No wonder consumers are fooled into taking "great deals" that turn out not so great if you look closely at the total out-of-pocket.
It was also found that Apple wasn’t violating ang laws, which is why those suits were dropped.
...because IMO the Japan authority wanted to avoid resorting to a lawsuit to get Apple to eliminate any contractual clauses which could be violating antitrust law. Negotiation worked and a lawsuit to force it wasn't needed. Therefore it can be claimed by all the parties involved that Apple wasn't found to be violating any laws, that's is true, but because they changed their contract rather than playing it to the end and chance being legally tagged as a lawbreaker which doesn't play well in the media.
Comments
If you had thought things through a little more, you may have resisted from posting that link. ;-)
It is mainly about phones that are returned -from retail. Unsold phones or phones returned to retail after initial sale. Not good.
It also states that a tiny percentage are sold abroad. Demand is high for lower priced iPhone X where phones such as the P20 Pro aren't as readily available. It might explain why I have only seen about three iPhone X in the wild since release in my neck of the woods.
http://observer.com/2018/05/apple-earnings-release-phone-x-china/
Apple did $13B of sales for that quarter in China, and iPhone X was the best selling smartphone of all models in China for that quarter.
I'm thinking that the comment about 98% of sales are in the U.S. is very inaccurate, but sure, we will find out in a short time when Apple releases it's financials.
but what you, and the cheerleaders for those Chinese companies either don’t know, or won’t acknowledge, is that they get under priced loans from Chinese government owned, or controlled banks. They often aren’t required to repay these loans, and they get subsidies as well. Most are losing money, some very badly. And who knows just what they get from the Chinese government industrial spying? As we know, almost all of Apple’s car project came close to getting stolen.It’s not an even playing field. Those low prices aren’t realworld.
huawei in particular, is partly controlled directly by the Chinese government.
That’s just wrong. Apple sells a lot of phones abroad, just not in the high percentage as the US, except for Japan.
Apple certainly owns the smartphone sector profits.
Huawei has constantly claimed that its only involvement with the Chinese government is that required by law. Just like any other company operating in China. Huawei is wholly owned by its employees (those that participate in the share scheme).
https://www.ft.com/content/469bde20-9eaf-11e3-8663-00144feab7de
https://www.zdnet.com/article/paranoia-will-destroy-you-why-chinese-tech-isnt-spying-on-us/
Most governments have stimulus or development programmes to help companies.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-huawei/huawei-rejects-eximbank-chiefs-china-aid-claim-idUSTRE75F71220110616
The entire Spanish banking system was bailed out using taxpayers' money a few years ago. The US is no different when it comes to helping out US companies. The defacto ban on Huawei has no evidence of any kind to support it and Huawei has presented a 100 page rebuttal of any suspicions:
Long read (.pdf)
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1060161615708/Comments%20of%20Huawei%20Technologies%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20and%20Huawei%20Technologies%20USA%2C%20Inc.%20-%20WC%20Docket%2018-89.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjtyLrUyrjcAhXCT8AKHRHSCBAQFjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw2c6znSDHOWlstHbeh2LxDP
"Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. (“Huawei”) applaud
The criticism of Huawei's involvement with US universities is just absurd. This is the rebuttal:
https://www.caixinglobal.com/2018-07-23/opinion-us-congress-wrong-to-question-huaweis-science-funding-101307449.html
Are you saying the P20 Pro is not better than the iPhone X? How are you defining better?
It is better on price
It is better on modem
It is better on battery
It is better on capacity
It is better on AI
It is better on camera
It has dual SIM, dual VoLTE, better location tracking, better cell handover, desktop mode etc.
Put an iPhone X and a P20 Pro side by side and ask people which one looks better from a shell design perspective.
Save that last point, the rest are basically objective assessments which can be consulted through online searches.
http://www.canadianreviewer.com/cr/2018/6/19/european-hardware-association-names-huawei-p20-pro-as-best-s.html
The superior Mate RS has 512GB of internal storage and uses aerospace cooling technology with microcapsule phase change materials inside and an inscreen fingerprint scanner etc.
Personal taste and opinion excepted, you will find general consensus leaning to the P20 Pro in this case. That doesn't mean the iPhone X is bad. Some will prefer it or a Samsung or a Pixel but when you look at what you are getting in key areas (like the ones listed above), the iPhone does come up short in many areas.
You launch a string of blatant falsehoods and when I point them out, I'm quibbling?
Why not just be accurate from the get go?
Just to be clear, yes, it is the lion's share but the lion's share is not ALL, is it? Also, if you dig a little deeper, that 60% I mentioned represented a huge 25% drop YoY from 2016. There is obviously some instability in the profit side of things.
I used to like the HTC ONE M7 and M8 designs but never bought one because it would have meant using Android. I due remember that the phones were criticized for their Camera which is now one of the most important features of a phone.
despite that we’re constantly told that “Android” is free and open to anyone, it’s not really true. Google has a very firm amount of control over exactly when, where and how any of it can be used, including the supposedly open source AOSP variant, which is actually on more phones around the world than the official Android version. When we read about “Android” having about an 80% worldwide market share, what’s actually the truth is that AOSP has about a 50% market share and the official Android has about a 30% market share.
of course, with AOSP, phone makers and their customers have no official access to the Google Play store, Google search, maps and other features. But those have been so successfully replaced that they replacements are often as widespread as the originals.
Im not confusing anything. It’s the tone, no matter what the article is supposed to be. You simply don’t deliberately denegrate companies that are competitors, just because...
you can state numbers to back up statements, you can say whether they’re successful or not. But being pejorative in and article is simply bad writing. I know it’s allowed, and maybe even encourages, for the “fans” ho want to eat that kind of Hong. But it brings down the level of everything else, particularly if it seems to be approved by the site itself.
usually articles with strong opinions have a disclaimer at the bottom, stating that the opinions are that of the author, and don’t necessarily reflect the official opinion of the publication.
if in these cases, it does, then that reflects badly on those who run the site.
its pretty simpke
Usually, after just a few weeks after they come out, Galaxy models are going for a buy one, get one for 50% off, and even a buy one and get one for free, or buy one and get a free Galaxy Tab 3 tablet. These are independent from the carriers who often bring in customers on 2 year contracts (yes, many people still do that) by giving a flagship phone at a big discount, or for “free” (it’s not).
these numbers don’t count the sales and profits from Samsung electronics parts sales. They’re exclusively from the selling of phones. It’s like counting iPad and Mac sales in iPhone sales numbers. No.
There's a lot of behind the scenes pricing trickery....
Give a little here but add it on elsewhere. No wonder consumers are fooled into taking "great deals" that turn out not so great if you look closely at the total out-of-pocket.
qe also have the investigations of Samsung over the years that show them illegally price fixing parts such as screens, NAND, RAM and other things that were ruled against them, costing them billions in fines over a period of time. That raised prices for everyone, including Apple. And the estimate of the prices they charge Apple for the i[gone X screens are about double of what they scare themselves. Some of that is due to the cost of cutting the screen for the notch, but that’s just a very small difference,