Everyone knows it's market share that really matters, just ask the pundits.
No need to ask only the 'pundits'. If you plan on offering services or consumables to your customers, marketshare is a key metric. If your platform depends on active, revenue generating developers, marketshare is also a key factor.
All of Apple's move's over the last few years have included measures to shore up handset sales and increase them. It has been a radical shift but in spite of those measures, sales have remained flat or dipped YoY.
Even the most persistent rumours for 2020 include yet more measures to stimulate handset growth (new SE model released out of the habitual refresh).
At the end of the day we are all 'pundits', just in different capacities. That includes Apple management, shareholders, users, competitors.
When Apple releases software targeting Android users to make switching easier, by definition, they are chasing marketshare.
When Apple opens up its services to Android users it is also chasing marketshare.
Perhaps the question you should ask yourself is howmuch marketshare is necessary to keep the business healthy. But at the end of the day it is still marketshare.
You should also compare Apple's handset business model and compare it to 2015. What has changed and more importantly, why?
There have been massive changes and they didn't come about through experimentation. They came about through necessity.
Nah. Your "but market share!" examples are services. Services which are not tethered to hardware, so there's absolutely no reason not to sell Apple Music on Android. Services is a different business model than hardware. Apple is king of hardware, and is also adding services. And interestingly it became king of hardware while needing developers, yet still didn't foolishly chase market share by making cheapies like your Chinese knockoffs. Just like they didn't make netbooks.
Even during the heyday of peak iPhone, everyone knew and commented upon that the historic, never-before-seen-on-earth success of the iPhone could not last forever. That is normal, expected, and not the sign of desperate flailing you like to pretend it is. Absolutely no one thought it would be otherwise.
Marketshare doesn't 'see' hardware or software. It is simply marketshare. More or less important depending on your business but important nevertheless.
Apple has been making frequent references to 'installed base' of late with nothing relevant to make any sense of it. With such a vast pool of customers, it had no need to widen product spreads, reduce pricing etc (applying your logic from the last few years).
And if the 'success could not last forever', then they would have factored a contraction into their business forecasts anyway. Of course they didn't do that at all. They actually overstated and ended up issuing a profit warning and admitted 'miscalculating'. Pundits, eh?
The success couldn't last forever. No, It never does. But, it didn't have to fall off as much as it did either. Since 2017 Apple has been continuously modifying its handset business strategy and ALL of the changes have been focused on breaking out of over three years of flat sales and preventing more YoY contraction. They upped iPhone pricing (X series - 2017) for revenue (not marketshare) and it didn't turn things around. They persisted with high prices in the following cycle (2018) and it backfired in a massive way (front page, high trade-in discounts appeared virtually immediately, plus direct discounts in China). All the while, the actual product fell way behind competitors in key areas and those competitors waded into Apple's ultra premium band. The following cycle (2019), brought more massive changes. Much better hardware and most importantly - price reductions on its projected top sellers and notably a price drop on the XR.
It is slow to manoeuvre because of its annual refresh cycle and even that is rumoured to change next year in an attempt to make its handset business more agile and competitive.
Its competitors are firmly camped in the ultra premium band and growing sales. That pie is only so big and, as this article suggests, Apple is taking less share of the available profits. Those same competitors are now also pumping their flagship technologies down into the lower bands too. As a result we are now seeing rumours of Apple possibly entering the middle ground with exactly the same thinking.
It wants marketshare. It needs marketshare, and with 80% of the handset market to go for, it should definitely try to grab some more.
"Absolutely no one thought it would be otherwise"
Really?
You have persistently taken issue with what I have suggested Apple do over the last few years and the reasons why.
Just about everything I have suggested has been implemented by Apple.
You clearly thought it would be otherwise.
Geeze, get real.
1) Yes, it absolutely matters whether we're talking hardware or services. There is not a compelling reason for Apple not to market a service like music or TV across platforms for added market share. The cost of the service is basically fixed and each added customer increases margin. Inversely, there is not a compelling reason for Apple to sell its tablet at cost/minimal-profit for added market share, because with every single sale margin takes a hit. One incurs loss of margin, the other increases margin. That's the difference. It has nothing to do with market share as thing of value all by itself. It isn't. Context matters. And in Apple terms, margin is usually that context that matters most, and that's why they focus on ASP and margins rather than worshipping at the Church of Market Share as you people go on about. (See "netbooks, lack of" -ed.)
2) No, no reasonable person thought there was going to be unlimited iPhone growth, and that was talked about frequently over the years. No reasonable person believes in perpetual motion machines, either. My taking issue with the dim things you often say, in no way infers I believe infinite iPhone growth is a thing. You're free to review my post history and quote me if you believe I have ever, ever advocated believe in or expectation of infinite growth. You'll be wasting your time tho, so you won't.
3) Your crappy knockoff brands participating in the knockoff-premium band may incur growth, but that's because they're starting at the bottom of the pyramid, not the top of it where Apple is at the real premium band. This shouldn't need explaining.
I love how you believe Apple has implemented everything you have suggested. Absurd, of course, but you keep doing you!
I got real years ago. That should be clear at this point.
You claim there is no real reason NOT to market Apple services across platforms. Perhaps you need reminding that right up to the announcement of Apple's TV service, nobody had any idea if it would be limited to Apple's platform or not. The thinking of some was that it was all going to form part of the so-called eco-system or lock-in as others call it.
In my eyes it made sense to widen the reach of Apple's TV services but that is just my opinion and while some shared it, others didn't, as they had their own reasons.
Implying it was a given is incorrect. It wasn't - right up to the official announcement. Nobody knew what its reach would be and nobody knew the pricing.
The cost of each service is not 'basically fixed'. There are delivery considerations (bandwidth, infrastructure, energy consumption etc) plus advertising, service and support and licencing. All subject to change for varying reasons.
Then there is the cost of content production for TV that can vary widely. As new countries come on board, so does the need of native content, plus in some key markets, dubbing.
Things are more complicated than saying 'each new customer increases margin', although, undoubtedly, that is the plan long term. Right now, and under the current (zero/low cost) roll out, Apple is probably losing money on TV services.
Some Apple users have smugly sat around and claimed there is no money to be had in catering to Android users as they have little disposable income and don't spend it on Apps and Services. That was never ever true but we regularly get articles about how the App store brings in most of the revenues of that particular pie. Android users spend billions too and Apple, quite rightly, wants in on some of that. Again, the source of this article suggests Apple is losing percentage points on handset derived profits. Well, those lost profits are going elsewhere and it isn't RIM. Yes, I know these figures fluctuate and Apple will increase its percentage due to seasonal factors but the last few years of data on its handset business are there and unquestionable. Apple's massive changes in strategy are also there and are attempts to turn things around. All in response to competiton.
Apple doesn't want flat sales and is not happy with flat sales. At this point, anyone trying to claim the situation is somehow normal, expected and foreseeable (pundits, eh?) is simply not paying attention to what is happening and what has happened.
We spent years talking about a supercycle. A supercycle that hasn't, openly at least, increased handset sales. A supercycle that was suggested and based on reasonable logic. You know, all the stereotypes, eco-system, lock-in, brand loyalty, better product, it just works etc.
I've gone on record numerous times as suggesting 'what if the supercycle actually happened but no one saw it?'.
Apple definitely knows but no one has really dug into Cook to find an answer. Apple knows, right down to the individual, who upgraded and who didn't. It's in the Apple IDs.
There are basically three possibilities.
It didn't happen It happened but no one saw it It happened but over such a long period that its impact was diluted.
None of those are what I would call desirable scenarios.
What is clear is that iPhone has suffered as a product over the last few years - in every way.
You are wrong to throw iPad into an iPhone discussion but the iPad is already (and has been for some time) a very affordable product and one that hasn't seen such intense competition. Even so, it had it very own 'crisis' in the eyes of some. The presence of an expensive pro model doesn't change anything. Nor does the presence of an ultra expensive iPhone.
This is about iPhone, not iPad. It is not casual that iPhone has been the backbone of Apple's success and even to this day remains the key driver. While that remains true, iPhone will be one of the pillars of Apple.
It is not about if I can quote you on saying Apple would need 'infinite' growth. You are throwing 'infinite' in here to then say 'hey, I never said that'. Of course I never even mentioned infinite growth in the first place.
No, the point is that you claimed none of what has happened would actually happen.
Not that that in itself really has any bearing on anything. Being 'right' or 'wrong' when you are giving a simple opinion or speculating doesn't mean that much.
What is more relevant is how people counter opinions or speculation with 'absolutes', as if they could possibly 'know' in the first place. And how, in the process, they throw in insults (veiled or otherwise). You have done both.
My responses in this thread are based on a mix of fact, opinion and speculation. The numbers are there. The official comments are there. The massive changes in Apple's handset strategy are there.
Apple's iPhone segment, today, is at eight times the profitability of Huawei, even including Huawei's greater unit sales, and Apple has used those profits to keep it's growing iPhone user base, at between 900 million and a billion users, quite happily buying other Apple devices and services. A virtuous cycle for Apple, even with "flat" iPhone sales between 180 and 220 million units a year.
Meanwhile, the best that Huawei can expect, is consolidation of the Android device industry in China leaving Apple, Samsung, and Huawei, in decreasing order, splitting the profits. I recall your comment on Xiaomi, when they stated their goal would be to maintain a profitability of 5% in smartphone sales, that "I could do something with that!". Well, it's barely registering any profit share at all, yet still sells large numbers of smartphones, but the effect on the Android device market is to keep margins extremely low for all of, and only, Android device builders, including Huawei.
Maybe your concern trolling of Apple's iPhone business, which you engage in whenever possible based almost entirely on its unit sales, would be better redirected to why Huawei hasn't yet exceeded Samsung in unit sales, and likely won't ever.
If you bring Huawei into things it is to focus on part of the competition. Likewise Xiaomi.
Yes, Chinese brands are part of the reason Apple has stalled on handset sales. Do you disagree?
Their profitability is irrelevant from an Apple perspective. When you are profitable to the tune of billions, though, it is enough. And the proof is in the pudding: the product. Apple has been playing catch-up.
Apple has reacted (is still reacting) to reality.
Look at all the changes in its handset strategy from 2017. Apple made those changes for clear reasons.
Try to imagine the situation today if those changes hadn't been made. Shudder the thought.
"... Apple has used those profits to keep it's growing iPhone user base, at between 900 million and a billion users, quite happily buying other Apple devices and services. A virtuous cycle for Apple, even with "flat" iPhone sales between 180 and 220 million units a year."
This is incorrect. Money can't keep a user base at specific levels. As I said before, unless someone fleshes out that billion users, the number is pretty much worthless. I'm definitely in there although my iOS devices do nothing for Apple and aren't being updated. Is it not reasonable to expect that every long term Apple user is in a similar situation. Or worse, and I give myself as an example again. My more current mobile hardware is not from Apple. That revenue went elsewhere.
If Xiaomi registers large sales but little profitability, it means those sales didn't go to a competitor, ultimately affecting the competitor's revenues and profitability. That's competition and why users don't care about the profitability of the manufacturer. They care about the product. For the record Xiaomi recently overtook Huawei in Spanish handset sales although Huawei Spain revenues are up, the company has its largest non Chinese flagship store in Madrid with another flagship store to open in Barcelona next year.
There are also rumours of Huawei seeking to open a huge manufacturing base within the EU.
Trump has really shot himself in the foot over Huawei. They are also seeking to increase manufacturing in South Korea and have signed multi billion dollar deals with Japanese companies. Meanwhile, U.S companies can only read the news and weep.
Today, with Trump bans and tantrums at 100%, Huawei said that handset sales could hit 230 million for 2018. That's a massive increase over 2017. And without a global launch for the Mate 30 Pro. One of the very best phones of 2019.
There you have yet another example of protectionism.
All while Apple takes in collateral damage for political shenanigans.
Yeah, so about that 230 million units sold.Apple is making eight times more profit from selling 200 million units.
That is, in the corporate world, the bottom line, driven by ASP and Margins on hardware and supported by the wide Apple ecosystem of hardware and software that users love.
As I said, profitability (in the sense of who is more profitable) is irrevelant.
Just ask Apple, which has been changing its handset movements for three years now looking for a way to increase demand.
Why wouldn't I like the link?
Trump has lost the respect of his peers. The day he took office there were some very negative comments caught from EU officials.
Huawei is perhaps a focus point to much about which the U.S has earned its negative reputation from abroad but many nations have taken note and are already reacting.
The only thing he has done long term damage to is the U.S itself.
Far from protecting U.S influence and technological advancement, he has dramatically accelerated the advancement of other companies and countries. Billions lost in revenues. Billions that will go to Chinese and other non-U.S interests. Billions that will be invested in competing R&D.
You are already seeing the fallout and the year hasn't even ended. Huawei has consistently produced some of the best handsets out there. This year alone it has pumped out massive new technologies. And in a tit for tat move, China has ordered a rip and replace order that will have an impact on U.S communications interests over the coming years.
The next part involves Huawei Mobile Services. The genie is out of that bottle thanks to Trump and it's not going back even if Google gets a licence.
The situation is mindboggingly absurd but there you have it. Huawei is becoming even more vertically integrated thanks to Trump.
Every new teardown sees HiSilicon pop up again and again.
Without the entity list, it is very likely Huawei would have overtaken Samsung this year.
Yes, there has been a big impact on Huawei but I'll leave it to you to figure out who is going to hurt more.
The Chinese have indeed copied freely and used their government funding to warp the playing field in their favor. But there are at least a couple of things you fail to take into your calculations concerning what you see as Apple’s impending doom.
1. Autocracy and originality are anathema to one another. Advantage Apple both short and long run.
2. These so-called competitors that you contend (with no proof) have “waded into Apple's ultra premium band“ are making some unknown number of high-end and presumably high quality smartphones, but that is almost certainly some small percentage of their production. Apple ONLY makes high quality products, and has in place a high quality production capacity all other computer manufacturers can only dream of.
3. Apple’s enormous cash flow gives them all the cash they need to continue improving and growing on all fronts simultaneously. Cash-starved operations can’t match that. Of course, government support helps make up for that, but also means those companies taking those handouts are dependent on them. That comes back in myriad ways to hurt them, a perfect example being lack of privacy protection.
4. Contrary to your assertion that smartphones are disconnected from other products like iPads, Apple has demonstrably shown that an ecosystem of products cross-feeds advantages. Thus, Apple Watches and AirPods help sell iPhones, and vice versa.
Bottom line: You’ve made the classic error of underestimating Apple. And you’re far from alone.
Apple is far from impending doom.
I am speaking about the handset business and that business alone.
That is the business that put Apple where it is today. That was (is) the leg that supports the weight of the company.
While it has grown new legs and they are strengthening, the iPhone business remains the biggest revenue driver.
Any stalling in that business draws attention - the entire article is based on the suspected profits Apple is taking from the industry. Less than before.
I have given plenty of examples in other threads of competitors moving into Apple's ultra premium bands. What proof are you looking for? Do you think the drop off in China has left millions of Chinese ultra premium buyers holding back on purchases?
ALL of Huawei's flagship lines over the last three years have broken records for the company. Each successive generation has outsold the previous one.
You need to take a look at the quality of competing phones. You are very wrong in implying that somehow only Apple has the quality others can only dream of. The same applies to much of the key technologies in them.
If the ecosystem helps sell more iPhones, why have iPhone sales been flat for years?
I do not underestimate Apple. Far from it. In fact the more they implement these changes in business strategy, the more I agree with them. They are things I've said they should do for years.
Your links are worthless. The first one is a statement by Huawei, and should be taken with a huge grain of salt. The second one is just as suspicious. These can at best be considered crude guesses.
Beyond that, the last hard number we got (from Apple) was about 217 M iPhones sold. Huawei is bragging (assuming they’re telling the truth) about selling 7 M over 2 months. Of course, nothing is said about their high quality production capacity, but even assuming the best or 3.5 M/month, that’s only about 42 M/year. And frankly, I’d be surprised if they can handle half that, or a tenth of Apple’s production capacity.
“If the ecosystem helps sell more iPhones, why have iPhone sales been flat for years?“
Why have Android sales been flat for years? Huawei may be growing, but it’s just another Android, so it’s not taking market share from Apple but from other Android manufacturers.
But again, you miss the point. Market share is far less important than installed base. It’s not incidental that Apple’s installed base is still growing, and now tops 900 M.
Statista’s Android numbers (highly suspect and almost certainly weighted in favor of Android) show 2.7 B installed base in 2017. With the flat smartphone market, I doubt it’s any higher today.
IOW, Apple has a far larger fraction of the installed base than it does a fraction of market share. Which makes perfect sense. Even older iPhones are extremely well built and treasured.
Are you really trying to claim that official sales numbers provided by the company itself and reported on are 'worthless'?
Where else would you prefer they were sourced from?
The simple fact that you resort to terms like 'worthless' and 'suspicious' make it clear that your mind is already made up. You even extend that notion further by pre-supposing Statista is weighted against Apple.
Android as a platform may be flat - but it's flat at 80%!!! Can you see the difference?
What do you know about Huawei's production capacity? Nothing?
Where do you think all these advanced process node chips are going?
"Android as a platform may be flat, but it's flat at 80%!"
iPhone as a platform may be flat, but it's flat at 66% of the profit of the entire market!
With that, it's highly unlikely that Huawei isn't getting support and subsidies from the Chinese Government, nor that Huawei is a Private Corporation comparable in any way to a Private Corporation in the West.
Good for HiSilicon to finally exceed Apple wafer consumption on TMSC's latest node but given that Huawei has enterprise, surveillance, and telecom businesses, that's not much of a win.
We can't compare 80% marketshare with 66% of the profit. They are two different concepts.
My point was that being flat at 20% marketshare is not the same as being flat at 80%.
At 20% you have pretty much the entire market to aim for. At 80% it's far more difficult because there is far less to aim for.
On profit, 66% is way off 90% (or even 100% as was claimed a few years ago). Times have changed and Apple is reacting.to those changes by altering its business strategy.
TSMC most advanced nodes are not pumping out chips for surveillance hardware. That uses different nodes as there is no need for expensive cutting edge technology in most of the use cases. Idem for things like Ascend. The high end Ascend chips use advanced nodes while other chips in the range move to other nodes depending on the end use. Idem network gear.
In volume terms, the bulk of Huawei's advanced node chips go into handsets.
As for not being a big win, nothing could be further from the truth. Given the headwinds, it is a massive win.
So much so, that few people saw this as being possible when Trump waded in.
Android as a platform may be flat - but it's flat at 80%!!! Can you see the difference?
It’s flat at 80% market share. But it’s only got around 70% installed base, and dropping. Now, you can keep ignoring that reality, but that won’t make it go away. Android is hemorrhaging installed base because of all the crappy hardware and software out there. Advantage, Apple.
We’re entering the endgame for smart devices, and Apple has huge advantages built up. That you’re too blind to see those advantages is your problem, not Apple’s.
How can 'only' and '70%' exist in the same sentence.
Either way, and as I have said a few times already, installed base means very little without the data to flesh it out. I gave an example further up.
Apple has huge advantages built up?
Please provide them.
One is obviously hard cash but they spent a decade sitting on that without putting it to good use. Its Iaggard status on 5G is tantamount to that. As is having to play catch up in vital handset technologies. And in spite of all that cash, they are still shipping 5W chargers!
You would have that with those advantages built up, they would have used some to improve the situation they are currently in and in case you have forgotten, we are talking about Apple's handset business.
Android as a platform may be flat - but it's flat at 80%!!! Can you see the difference?
It’s flat at 80% market share. But it’s only got around 70% installed base, and dropping. Now, you can keep ignoring that reality, but that won’t make it go away. Android is hemorrhaging installed base because of all the crappy hardware and software out there. Advantage, Apple.
We’re entering the endgame for smart devices, and Apple has huge advantages built up. That you’re too blind to see those advantages is your problem, not Apple’s.
How can 'only' and '70%' exist in the same sentence.
Either way, and as I have said a few times already, installed base means very little without the data to flesh it out. I gave an example further up.
Apple has huge advantages built up?
Please provide them.
One is obviously hard cash ñ but they spent a decade sitting on that without putting it to good use. Its Iaggard status on 5G is tantamount to that. As is having to play catch up in vital handset technologies. And in spite of all that cash, they are still shipping 5W chargers!
Marketshare is a metric for unit sales, so Android OS devices are nominally at 80% or even possibly closer to 90%, given the throwaway status of a lot of the Android OS devices.
User base is active users, so if iPhone is 900 million and Android OS devices is at 2.5 million, (we won't count the odd Windows mobile, et al) the total of smartphone users is at 3.4 billion, so iPhone is 26.5% and Android OS is 73.5%. On the other hand, if iPhone users are at 1 billion, and Android OS users are at 2.5 billion, then Apple's share of smartphone users is more like 28.5%.
Apple has huge advantages, but you, of necessity for your arguments, have set the goalpost at iPhones versus Android OS smartphones, not at Apple's ecosystem, OS, and Hardware advantages over Android OS,
When we look at what proportion of Android OS devices are on the latest, or even the previous OS releases, it's actually pretty pathetic;
"Android 10 has been released, but as it’s still early, only a few devices have been updated to Android’s latest version. As such, it will be a while before Google releases numbers about Android 10’s penetration into the market. But we can still take a look at how well Android’s last major update, Android 9.0 Pie, has been doing. According to numbers from May of 2019, Google is still struggling to update existing devices to its latest operating systems, with the adoption of Pie at a measly 10.4%.
As was true back in October 2018, Android Oreo is still the most common version of Android on devices, with versions 8.0 and 8.1 amounting to a combined 28.3% of all active Android devices. That’s a massive 9.1% increase since October 2018. Android Nougat comes in second place, with 7.0 and 7.1 representing 19.2% of all active Android devices. In fact, if placed into a hierarchical list, Android 9.0 Pie comes in at an embarrassing fifth place, behind 2014’s Android Lollipop (14.5%) and 2015’s Android Marshmallow(16.9%)."
It doesn't take much imagination to realize that iOS will actually get a larger share of the OS pie if Huawei ends up abandoning Android OS of any flavor, creating a third major OS, Harmony.
The Cupertino, California-based company frequently updates the number of devices running its OS, and the latest numbers based on App Store data claim that 88% of active iOS devices run some version of iOS 12. As you might suspect, that means there’s a hefty drop for the previous version, iOS 11. Only 7% of active devices are running Apple’s previous OS, and a paltry 5% run a version of iOS older than that."
"Apple’s iOS 13 is running on 50 percent of all iPhones after three weeks"
That would be somewhere between 450 and 500 million iPhones already running iOS 13.
Marketshare for Android OS doesn't have the same actual impact of Apple's user share when it comes to corporate metrics, hence why your arguing against profitability as a corporate goal is so weak. The value of Apple's iPhone user base is well known; Android OS user base, not so much.
Yeah, Apple's behind on 5G, as if it is a critical feature for all but a few iPhones users this year, but otherwise, Apple doesn't lag in useful features compared to Huawei, contrary to your marketing spin. If anything, you are a great example of not even following your own advice; you won't be upgrading to 5G anytime soon, nor do you buy the bleeding edge smartphones that Android OS has been delivering for the last decade, all of which pale against the advantages of iPhone, as determined by the actual user base.
I'll chalk all of your posts to not understanding Apple's iPhone market, even minimally, nor understanding the basic metrics of ASP, Margin, revenue, or profitability, hence why I have, fairly, called you a "concern" troll.
Here is another headwind for China, which might be reflected in Huawei sales;
In fact, Apple makes a higher percentage of the profits than Counterpoint claims -- this time, however, they're ignoring companies that sell their cellphones at a loss (like LG and Blackberry, as examples) so as not to create the "confusing" over 100 percent-type figure. The numbers are different because of limiting the comparison to only companies that make some profit, but essentially the story is unchanged: Apple makes nearly all the PROFIT in the smartphone business, with Samsung a distant second, and everyone else squeaking a razor-thin margin or none at all.
This is very important to know. Don’t let be fooled by who tell you that huawei or other brands sell more than Apple. That’s called marketing. The reality is that who spend money buy iPhone, more than ever.
Comments
My point was that being flat at 20% marketshare is not the same as being flat at 80%.
At 20% you have pretty much the entire market to aim for. At 80% it's far more difficult because there is far less to aim for.
On profit, 66% is way off 90% (or even 100% as was claimed a few years ago). Times have changed and Apple is reacting.to those changes by altering its business strategy.
TSMC most advanced nodes are not pumping out chips for surveillance hardware. That uses different nodes as there is no need for expensive cutting edge technology in most of the use cases. Idem for things like Ascend. The high end Ascend chips use advanced nodes while other chips in the range move to other nodes depending on the end use. Idem network gear.
In volume terms, the bulk of Huawei's advanced node chips go into handsets.
As for not being a big win, nothing could be further from the truth. Given the headwinds, it is a massive win.
So much so, that few people saw this as being possible when Trump waded in.
Either way, and as I have said a few times already, installed base means very little without the data to flesh it out. I gave an example further up.
Apple has huge advantages built up?
Please provide them.
One is obviously hard cash but they spent a decade sitting on that without putting it to good use. Its Iaggard status on 5G is tantamount to that. As is having to play catch up in vital handset technologies. And in spite of all that cash, they are still shipping 5W chargers!
You would have that with those advantages built up, they would have used some to improve the situation they are currently in and in case you have forgotten, we are talking about Apple's handset business.
User base is active users, so if iPhone is 900 million and Android OS devices is at 2.5 million, (we won't count the odd Windows mobile, et al) the total of smartphone users is at 3.4 billion, so iPhone is 26.5% and Android OS is 73.5%. On the other hand, if iPhone users are at 1 billion, and Android OS users are at 2.5 billion, then Apple's share of smartphone users is more like 28.5%.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/bigger-than-windows-bigger-than-ios-google-now-has-2-5-billion-active-android-devices-after-10-years/
Apple has huge advantages, but you, of necessity for your arguments, have set the goalpost at iPhones versus Android OS smartphones, not at Apple's ecosystem, OS, and Hardware advantages over Android OS,
When we look at what proportion of Android OS devices are on the latest, or even the previous OS releases, it's actually pretty pathetic;
https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/android-distribution-news/
"Android 10 has been released, but as it’s still early, only a few devices have been updated to Android’s latest version. As such, it will be a while before Google releases numbers about Android 10’s penetration into the market. But we can still take a look at how well Android’s last major update, Android 9.0 Pie, has been doing. According to numbers from May of 2019, Google is still struggling to update existing devices to its latest operating systems, with the adoption of Pie at a measly 10.4%.
As was true back in October 2018, Android Oreo is still the most common version of Android on devices, with versions 8.0 and 8.1 amounting to a combined 28.3% of all active Android devices. That’s a massive 9.1% increase since October 2018. Android Nougat comes in second place, with 7.0 and 7.1 representing 19.2% of all active Android devices. In fact, if placed into a hierarchical list, Android 9.0 Pie comes in at an embarrassing fifth place, behind 2014’s Android Lollipop (14.5%) and 2015’s Android Marshmallow(16.9%)."
It doesn't take much imagination to realize that iOS will actually get a larger share of the OS pie if Huawei ends up abandoning Android OS of any flavor, creating a third major OS, Harmony.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/ios-distribution-news/
The Cupertino, California-based company frequently updates the number of devices running its OS, and the latest numbers based on App Store data claim that 88% of active iOS devices run some version of iOS 12. As you might suspect, that means there’s a hefty drop for the previous version, iOS 11. Only 7% of active devices are running Apple’s previous OS, and a paltry 5% run a version of iOS older than that."
https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/16/20918359/apple-iphone-11-pro-ios-13-adoption-rate-google-android-10
"Apple’s iOS 13 is running on 50 percent of all iPhones after three weeks"
That would be somewhere between 450 and 500 million iPhones already running iOS 13.Marketshare for Android OS doesn't have the same actual impact of Apple's user share when it comes to corporate metrics, hence why your arguing against profitability as a corporate goal is so weak. The value of Apple's iPhone user base is well known; Android OS user base, not so much.
Yeah, Apple's behind on 5G, as if it is a critical feature for all but a few iPhones users this year, but otherwise, Apple doesn't lag in useful features compared to Huawei, contrary to your marketing spin. If anything, you are a great example of not even following your own advice; you won't be upgrading to 5G anytime soon, nor do you buy the bleeding edge smartphones that Android OS has been delivering for the last decade, all of which pale against the advantages of iPhone, as determined by the actual user base.
I'll chalk all of your posts to not understanding Apple's iPhone market, even minimally, nor understanding the basic metrics of ASP, Margin, revenue, or profitability, hence why I have, fairly, called you a "concern" troll.
Here is another headwind for China, which might be reflected in Huawei sales;
https://www.change.org/p/international-olympic-committee-revoke-beijing-s-hosting-right-of-2022-winter-olympics-on-human-rights-ground