The iphone is already available in the whole world.
It is indefensible to argue that the iphone has any significant US market share at all --- when more than half of them are shipped overseas.
You can't have it both ways. As more and more countries have official iphone distribution deals --- the number of US "missing" iphones will decrease. That means one thing --- the iphone's US market share will fall to the real level.
You are correct. I can have an item from any country sold to me in any country if I really tried, but that doesn't change the numbers for the quarter as they measure sales in the US for that quarter.
Sure, the percentage of devices sold to foreign markets will decrease substantially, but unless we can accurately quantify that for each carrier (even though it's presumably smaller for others there are tourists that are buying in the US because of the weakened dollar) the number of the units sold in the US still holds true. Are you suggesting that we throw the entire measure out?
PS: It will be interesting to see how Apple fares in after the 3G iPhone hits in all the contracted countries.
The iphone is already available in the whole world.
Yeah, as a crippled/jailbroken device that a few high-end nerds can put to use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
It is indefensible to argue that the iphone has any significant US market share at all --- when more than half of them are shipped overseas.
Stop using exaggerated words like "indefensible" that only detract from your points. Even assuming what you say is true (link please?), half of 20% is 10%, which is not in"significant."
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
You can't have it both ways. As more and more countries have official iphone distribution deals --- the number of US "missing" iphones will decrease. That means one thing --- the iphone's US market share will fall to the real level.
All such predictions are worth the paper they are written on. We'll have to see, won't we.
And what was it the 'experts' from other phone companies said before Apple launched ...?
"From other phone companies?"
Heh heh. What about from this forum...... and, even after (well after) Apple launched....
How long have companies like Nokia been in this business? I'll be impressed (truly) when someone like a Nokia can get, say, 5.3% of the PMP business. (And, Apple has been in that business for only seven years.)
Sure, the percentage of devices sold to foreign markets will decrease substantially, but unless we can accurately quantify that for each carrier (even though it's presumably smaller for others there are tourists that are buying in the US because of the weakened dollar) the number of the units sold in the US still holds true. Are you suggesting that we throw the entire measure out?
Most of the Blackberry users are enterprise users --- the devices stay in the US. More than half of the US mobile phone market is CDMA --- the devices stay in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Stop using exaggerated words like "indefensible" that only detract from your points. Even assuming what you say is true (link please?), half of 20% is 10%, which is not in"significant."
When you have 2 million iphones sold in the US in Q4 and 900K activation --- that's less than half. When you have 1.7 million iphone sold in the US in Q1 and AT&T CFO took 4.75 months to announce an additional 500K activation (that's a run rate of 315K iphone activation in Q1) --- that's less than 20%.
If the study is correct and the iphone has a 20% of the market ---- then the US smartphone market is less than 2 million units per quarter. I don't think that the US market is that small.
A 10% market share means that Apple is well behind RIM and Windows Mobile in the US --- and about the same size as Palm. It's not much of a market when you are the same size as Palm. But if the ratio is 20% of the iphones stay in the US is true --- then that 20% becomes a 4% market share.
Quote:
All such predictions are worth the paper they are written on. We'll have to see, won't we.
It's not much of a prediction, it's just a factual issue. As more and more countries are selling iphones officially --- then the unofficial "missing" iphone numbers will decrease --- and we will have a more accurate picture of the US iphone market share in the US.
Most of the Blackberry users are enterprise users --- the devices stay in the US. More than half of the US mobile phone market is CDMA --- the devices stay in the US.
When you have 2 million iphones sold in the US in Q4 and 900K activation --- that's less than half. When you have 1.7 million iphone sold in the US in Q1 and AT&T CFO took 4.75 months to announce an additional 500K activation (that's a run rate of 315K iphone activation in Q1) --- that's less than 20%.
{...]
You really make replying to you difficult because it always has to start by clearing up what have left out. You mention CDMA in the first paragraph as if it's the only network type in the US. Of course Europeans aren't going to buy a CDMA phone in the US to take back home.
Then you mention your numbers about AT&T activations?which were fuzzy to begin with?as the only possible way the iPhone could be activated in the US when you know perfectly well that many are used on T-Mobile's and other GSM networks because you've used that argument before to state that AT&T's iPhone activations are low and thus not a money maker for the iPhone, despite the new iPhone activation monthly profits are 50% higher than all the Go Plans in that same quarter by your numbers.
If you can't look at the US as a US sale and thus adding to marketshare and revenue gains for the US, then you should ignore that aspect all together and look at the global marketshare in which Apple claimed a #3 rank in its 3rd full quarter of sales despite the early adopters already buying in, being EDGE, and having a 3G version imminent in 2008, even by word of the CEO of Apple.
A 10% market share means that Apple is well behind RIM and Windows Mobile in the US --- and about the same size as Palm. It's not much of a market when you are the same size as Palm.
Samab, are you arguing for the sake of arguing? You can make an inteligent case that the American numbers are overestimated. Fine.
But to say that American use is not significant is just a little odd. You're talking about a market that Apple JUST ENTERED. A market that many inteligent people said a year ago Apple would have trouble understanding and breaking into. But you would have a hard time convincing many at this stage that that 10% is where Apple will be in 12 months. If they are stuck down with Palm next year you can bump this post in all our faces.
Also, you seem to be arguing that because iPhones are already bought in the US, altered, then shipped to other countries through a grey market at inflated prices, that the arrival of iPhones to those countries through normal retail chanels with carrier partnerships (in 3G form no less) will not change sales to those countries significantly.
You really make replying to you difficult because it always has to start by clearing up what have left out. You mention CDMA in the first paragraph as if it's the only network type in the US. Of course Europeans aren't going to buy a CDMA phone in the US to take back home.
Then you mention your numbers about AT&T activations?which were fuzzy to begin with?as the only possible way the iPhone could be activated in the US when you know perfectly well that many are used on T-Mobile's and other GSM networks because you've used that argument before to state that AT&T's iPhone activations are low and thus not a money maker for the iPhone, despite the new iPhone activation monthly profits are 50% higher than all the Go Plans in that same quarter by your numbers.
If you can't look at the US as a US sale and thus adding to marketshare and revenue gains for the US, then you should ignore that aspect all together and look at the global marketshare in which Apple claimed a #3 rank in its 3rd full quarter of sales despite the early adopters already buying in, being EDGE, and having a 3G version imminent in 2008, even by word of the CEO of Apple.
Where did I say that CDMA is the only mobile technology in the US? I said more than half of the mobile phone users are on CDMA in the US --- that's a fact for a year now.
If there is a lot of iphones in the T-Mobile USA network --- don't you think that T-Mobile would advertise it as a PR stunt?
It's a problem for AT&T to target the extreme low end and extreme high end of the market. It's like the American car industry --- Ford sells cheap Ford cars and expensive Jaguars. The money is in the middle --- Honda Accords.
I do look at the worldwide market numbers --- but with 1 caveat --- the iphone is not going to spike in sales just because it's going to be available in 60 other countries (because it is already available in those 60 other countries right now).
Also, you seem to be arguing that because iPhones are already bought in the US, altered, then shipped to other countries through a grey market at inflated prices, that the arrival of iPhones to those countries through normal retail chanels with carrier partnerships (in 3G form no less) will not change sales to those countries significantly.
Unlocked grey market iphones aren't sold at inflated prices at all. An European can buy an American iphone, pay somebody to unlocked it in the UK, Germany and France --- and still be cheaper than buying the official iphone in UK, Germany and France.
Do you have a source to validate that? I don't know anyone with BB's, including the 10 BB's in my company that are enterprise users.
The iPhone is going to be the #1 smart phone one year from now or earlier. Write it down. It is filtering down from top corporate exec's into upper management and will soon be making its way into middle management and sales. I see this happening over the past 4 months like a tidal wave. If Apple would have supported Verizon, it would have been the #1 phone right now but such is the Steve.
Do you have a source to validate that? I don't know anyone with BB's, including the 10 BB's in my company that are enterprise users.
The iPhone is going to be the #1 smart phone one year from now or earlier. Write it down. It is filtering down from top corporate exec's into upper management and will soon be making its way into middle management and sales. I see this happening over the past 4 months like a tidal wave. If Apple would have supported Verizon, it would have been the #1 phone right now but such is the Steve.
If the iphone becomes number 1 smartphone --- then it has the same kind of problems as Nokia smartphones --- nobody actually use them as smartphones.
The problem resides entirely on how they define smartphones in their studies.
Where did I say that CDMA is the only mobile technology in the US? I said more than half of the mobile phone users are on CDMA in the US --- that's a fact for a year now.
You replied to my comment which was a reply to your comment about shipping overseas, which has no bearing on CDMA devices. Hence my comment "You mention CDMA in the first paragraph as if it's the only network type in the US."
Quote:
I do look at the worldwide market numbers --- but with 1 caveat --- the iphone is not going to spike in sales just because it's going to be available in 60 other countries (because it is already available in those 60 other countries right now).
You really don't think that a non-jailbroken and unlocked EDGE device that can only be had by through a black market at an inflated price is not going to fare better than a HSDPA device had at a lower price through white market retailers? I'll need some explaining to even begin to see your POV there.
Unlocked grey market iphones aren't sold at inflated prices at all. An European can buy an American iphone, pay somebody to unlocked it in the UK, Germany and France --- and still be cheaper than buying the official iphone in UK, Germany and France.
OK, but you only refuted one of my points and you contine with the same argument
Quote:
the iphone is not going to spike in sales just because it's going to be available in 60 other countries (because it is already available in those 60 other countries right now).
So here, I fixed it: you seem to be arguing that because iPhones are already bought in the US, altered, then shipped to other countries through a grey market, that the arrival of iPhones to those countries through normal retail chanels with carrier partnerships (in 3G form no less) will not change sales to those countries significantly.
To add to my argument, these grey market phones are sold without warentees, advertizing, certainty of updates and (again) without 3G.
Really, do you believe that there will be no change in iPhone sales between last year and this year or should you be put in the troll/ignore category?
If the iphone becomes number 1 smartphone --- then it has the same kind of problems as Nokia smartphones --- nobody actually use them as smartphones.
The problem resides entirely on how they define smartphones in their studies.
Regardless how people use them, if the Corvette is the #1 selling sports car, it is the #1 selling sports car regardless if it sits in a garage or at the drag strip.
Defining smart phones isn't really that hard. Of course there is a gray area but I will say it will dominate the palms and bb's.
If the iphone becomes number 1 smartphone --- then it has the same kind of problems as Nokia smartphones --- nobody actually use them as smartphones.
The problem resides entirely on how they define smartphones in their studies.
These are some of the problems I have with your arguments:
1) Nobody is an absolute. That implies that not even one person uses it as a smartphone, which can't be true.
2) You then state it depends on how you define it. Do you not see the dichotomy between your two statements in confusing. We can either define it ourselves, you can state your definition for your argument or we can use the definition enacted by others, but a definition is required to make any point.
Defining smart phones isn't really that hard. Of course there is a gray area but I will say it will dominate the palms and bb's.
This can get dicey. If OS X iPhone v2.0 doesn't have cut and paste capabilities, and/or a Word and Excel app then many people won't define it as a smartphone. While some would say that is being too specific.
On the flip side, Some say that having a web browser makes it a smartphone. While others say that their free flip phone can also view webpages... of a sort, which is not being specific enough in my book.
So then they say they have a full web browsing experience on the iPhone, which is then countered by stating that without Flash (and perhaps Java) it can't be a full experience.
Just look at the iphone launch in Europe --- did the numbers spike up a lot in Europe? No.
The presence or absence of 3G didn't affect Europe's numbers at all. People buy a phone because it's cheap, not because it's a 3G phone. 58% of Verizon Wireless' customers have a 3G phone.
We can either define it ourselves, you can state your definition for your argument or we can use the definition enacted by others.
The problem is that there are no unbiased studies around --- they all want to be on the front pages, so they all skew their methodologies.
It's an election year in the US --- Democrats will have one set of questions for their surveys (to make themselves look good) and Republicans will have another set of questions for their survey (to make themselves look good).
Comments
The iphone is already available in the whole world.
It is indefensible to argue that the iphone has any significant US market share at all --- when more than half of them are shipped overseas.
You can't have it both ways. As more and more countries have official iphone distribution deals --- the number of US "missing" iphones will decrease. That means one thing --- the iphone's US market share will fall to the real level.
You are correct. I can have an item from any country sold to me in any country if I really tried, but that doesn't change the numbers for the quarter as they measure sales in the US for that quarter.
Sure, the percentage of devices sold to foreign markets will decrease substantially, but unless we can accurately quantify that for each carrier (even though it's presumably smaller for others there are tourists that are buying in the US because of the weakened dollar) the number of the units sold in the US still holds true. Are you suggesting that we throw the entire measure out?
PS: It will be interesting to see how Apple fares in after the 3G iPhone hits in all the contracted countries.
The iphone is already available in the whole world.
Yeah, as a crippled/jailbroken device that a few high-end nerds can put to use.
It is indefensible to argue that the iphone has any significant US market share at all --- when more than half of them are shipped overseas.
Stop using exaggerated words like "indefensible" that only detract from your points. Even assuming what you say is true (link please?), half of 20% is 10%, which is not in"significant."
You can't have it both ways. As more and more countries have official iphone distribution deals --- the number of US "missing" iphones will decrease. That means one thing --- the iphone's US market share will fall to the real level.
All such predictions are worth the paper they are written on. We'll have to see, won't we.
And what was it the 'experts' from other phone companies said before Apple launched ...?
"From other phone companies?"
Heh heh. What about from this forum...... and, even after (well after) Apple launched....
How long have companies like Nokia been in this business? I'll be impressed (truly) when someone like a Nokia can get, say, 5.3% of the PMP business. (And, Apple has been in that business for only seven years.)
Sure, the percentage of devices sold to foreign markets will decrease substantially, but unless we can accurately quantify that for each carrier (even though it's presumably smaller for others there are tourists that are buying in the US because of the weakened dollar) the number of the units sold in the US still holds true. Are you suggesting that we throw the entire measure out?
Most of the Blackberry users are enterprise users --- the devices stay in the US. More than half of the US mobile phone market is CDMA --- the devices stay in the US.
Stop using exaggerated words like "indefensible" that only detract from your points. Even assuming what you say is true (link please?), half of 20% is 10%, which is not in"significant."
When you have 2 million iphones sold in the US in Q4 and 900K activation --- that's less than half. When you have 1.7 million iphone sold in the US in Q1 and AT&T CFO took 4.75 months to announce an additional 500K activation (that's a run rate of 315K iphone activation in Q1) --- that's less than 20%.
If the study is correct and the iphone has a 20% of the market ---- then the US smartphone market is less than 2 million units per quarter. I don't think that the US market is that small.
A 10% market share means that Apple is well behind RIM and Windows Mobile in the US --- and about the same size as Palm. It's not much of a market when you are the same size as Palm. But if the ratio is 20% of the iphones stay in the US is true --- then that 20% becomes a 4% market share.
All such predictions are worth the paper they are written on. We'll have to see, won't we.
It's not much of a prediction, it's just a factual issue. As more and more countries are selling iphones officially --- then the unofficial "missing" iphone numbers will decrease --- and we will have a more accurate picture of the US iphone market share in the US.
Most of the Blackberry users are enterprise users --- the devices stay in the US. More than half of the US mobile phone market is CDMA --- the devices stay in the US.
When you have 2 million iphones sold in the US in Q4 and 900K activation --- that's less than half. When you have 1.7 million iphone sold in the US in Q1 and AT&T CFO took 4.75 months to announce an additional 500K activation (that's a run rate of 315K iphone activation in Q1) --- that's less than 20%.
{...]
You really make replying to you difficult because it always has to start by clearing up what have left out. You mention CDMA in the first paragraph as if it's the only network type in the US. Of course Europeans aren't going to buy a CDMA phone in the US to take back home.
Then you mention your numbers about AT&T activations?which were fuzzy to begin with?as the only possible way the iPhone could be activated in the US when you know perfectly well that many are used on T-Mobile's and other GSM networks because you've used that argument before to state that AT&T's iPhone activations are low and thus not a money maker for the iPhone, despite the new iPhone activation monthly profits are 50% higher than all the Go Plans in that same quarter by your numbers.
If you can't look at the US as a US sale and thus adding to marketshare and revenue gains for the US, then you should ignore that aspect all together and look at the global marketshare in which Apple claimed a #3 rank in its 3rd full quarter of sales despite the early adopters already buying in, being EDGE, and having a 3G version imminent in 2008, even by word of the CEO of Apple.
A 10% market share means that Apple is well behind RIM and Windows Mobile in the US --- and about the same size as Palm. It's not much of a market when you are the same size as Palm.
Samab, are you arguing for the sake of arguing? You can make an inteligent case that the American numbers are overestimated. Fine.
But to say that American use is not significant is just a little odd. You're talking about a market that Apple JUST ENTERED. A market that many inteligent people said a year ago Apple would have trouble understanding and breaking into. But you would have a hard time convincing many at this stage that that 10% is where Apple will be in 12 months. If they are stuck down with Palm next year you can bump this post in all our faces.
Also, you seem to be arguing that because iPhones are already bought in the US, altered, then shipped to other countries through a grey market at inflated prices, that the arrival of iPhones to those countries through normal retail chanels with carrier partnerships (in 3G form no less) will not change sales to those countries significantly.
Yeah. You have two good positions there...
You really make replying to you difficult because it always has to start by clearing up what have left out. You mention CDMA in the first paragraph as if it's the only network type in the US. Of course Europeans aren't going to buy a CDMA phone in the US to take back home.
Then you mention your numbers about AT&T activations?which were fuzzy to begin with?as the only possible way the iPhone could be activated in the US when you know perfectly well that many are used on T-Mobile's and other GSM networks because you've used that argument before to state that AT&T's iPhone activations are low and thus not a money maker for the iPhone, despite the new iPhone activation monthly profits are 50% higher than all the Go Plans in that same quarter by your numbers.
If you can't look at the US as a US sale and thus adding to marketshare and revenue gains for the US, then you should ignore that aspect all together and look at the global marketshare in which Apple claimed a #3 rank in its 3rd full quarter of sales despite the early adopters already buying in, being EDGE, and having a 3G version imminent in 2008, even by word of the CEO of Apple.
Where did I say that CDMA is the only mobile technology in the US? I said more than half of the mobile phone users are on CDMA in the US --- that's a fact for a year now.
http://www.cellular-news.com/story/24950.php
If there is a lot of iphones in the T-Mobile USA network --- don't you think that T-Mobile would advertise it as a PR stunt?
It's a problem for AT&T to target the extreme low end and extreme high end of the market. It's like the American car industry --- Ford sells cheap Ford cars and expensive Jaguars. The money is in the middle --- Honda Accords.
I do look at the worldwide market numbers --- but with 1 caveat --- the iphone is not going to spike in sales just because it's going to be available in 60 other countries (because it is already available in those 60 other countries right now).
Also, you seem to be arguing that because iPhones are already bought in the US, altered, then shipped to other countries through a grey market at inflated prices, that the arrival of iPhones to those countries through normal retail chanels with carrier partnerships (in 3G form no less) will not change sales to those countries significantly.
Unlocked grey market iphones aren't sold at inflated prices at all. An European can buy an American iphone, pay somebody to unlocked it in the UK, Germany and France --- and still be cheaper than buying the official iphone in UK, Germany and France.
Most of the Blackberry users are enterprise users
Do you have a source to validate that? I don't know anyone with BB's, including the 10 BB's in my company that are enterprise users.
The iPhone is going to be the #1 smart phone one year from now or earlier. Write it down. It is filtering down from top corporate exec's into upper management and will soon be making its way into middle management and sales. I see this happening over the past 4 months like a tidal wave. If Apple would have supported Verizon, it would have been the #1 phone right now but such is the Steve.
Do you have a source to validate that? I don't know anyone with BB's, including the 10 BB's in my company that are enterprise users.
The iPhone is going to be the #1 smart phone one year from now or earlier. Write it down. It is filtering down from top corporate exec's into upper management and will soon be making its way into middle management and sales. I see this happening over the past 4 months like a tidal wave. If Apple would have supported Verizon, it would have been the #1 phone right now but such is the Steve.
If the iphone becomes number 1 smartphone --- then it has the same kind of problems as Nokia smartphones --- nobody actually use them as smartphones.
The problem resides entirely on how they define smartphones in their studies.
Where did I say that CDMA is the only mobile technology in the US? I said more than half of the mobile phone users are on CDMA in the US --- that's a fact for a year now.
You replied to my comment which was a reply to your comment about shipping overseas, which has no bearing on CDMA devices. Hence my comment "You mention CDMA in the first paragraph as if it's the only network type in the US."
I do look at the worldwide market numbers --- but with 1 caveat --- the iphone is not going to spike in sales just because it's going to be available in 60 other countries (because it is already available in those 60 other countries right now).
You really don't think that a non-jailbroken and unlocked EDGE device that can only be had by through a black market at an inflated price is not going to fare better than a HSDPA device had at a lower price through white market retailers? I'll need some explaining to even begin to see your POV there.
Unlocked grey market iphones aren't sold at inflated prices at all. An European can buy an American iphone, pay somebody to unlocked it in the UK, Germany and France --- and still be cheaper than buying the official iphone in UK, Germany and France.
OK, but you only refuted one of my points and you contine with the same argument
the iphone is not going to spike in sales just because it's going to be available in 60 other countries (because it is already available in those 60 other countries right now).
So here, I fixed it: you seem to be arguing that because iPhones are already bought in the US, altered, then shipped to other countries through a grey market, that the arrival of iPhones to those countries through normal retail chanels with carrier partnerships (in 3G form no less) will not change sales to those countries significantly.
To add to my argument, these grey market phones are sold without warentees, advertizing, certainty of updates and (again) without 3G.
Really, do you believe that there will be no change in iPhone sales between last year and this year or should you be put in the troll/ignore category?
If the iphone becomes number 1 smartphone --- then it has the same kind of problems as Nokia smartphones --- nobody actually use them as smartphones.
The problem resides entirely on how they define smartphones in their studies.
Regardless how people use them, if the Corvette is the #1 selling sports car, it is the #1 selling sports car regardless if it sits in a garage or at the drag strip.
Defining smart phones isn't really that hard. Of course there is a gray area but I will say it will dominate the palms and bb's.
If the iphone becomes number 1 smartphone --- then it has the same kind of problems as Nokia smartphones --- nobody actually use them as smartphones.
The problem resides entirely on how they define smartphones in their studies.
These are some of the problems I have with your arguments:
1) Nobody is an absolute. That implies that not even one person uses it as a smartphone, which can't be true.
2) You then state it depends on how you define it. Do you not see the dichotomy between your two statements in confusing. We can either define it ourselves, you can state your definition for your argument or we can use the definition enacted by others, but a definition is required to make any point.
Bad in terms of WorldWide Market Share, literally zero penetration in business unit yet, the 3G iphone simple quad trible their Market share.
But anything more would means a little more magic from SJ. Since Nokia and RIM doesn't look stupid, bloat and dull company at all.
- the iphone is not going to spike in sales just because it's going to be available in 60 other countries.....
Sometimes you really can be quite ridiculous.
Defining smart phones isn't really that hard. Of course there is a gray area but I will say it will dominate the palms and bb's.
This can get dicey. If OS X iPhone v2.0 doesn't have cut and paste capabilities, and/or a Word and Excel app then many people won't define it as a smartphone. While some would say that is being too specific.
On the flip side, Some say that having a web browser makes it a smartphone. While others say that their free flip phone can also view webpages... of a sort, which is not being specific enough in my book.
So then they say they have a full web browsing experience on the iPhone, which is then countered by stating that without Flash (and perhaps Java) it can't be a full experience.
Sometimes you really can be quite ridiculous.
Yeah, he left when pressed to explain ridiculous positions...
The presence or absence of 3G didn't affect Europe's numbers at all. People buy a phone because it's cheap, not because it's a 3G phone. 58% of Verizon Wireless' customers have a 3G phone.
http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/...revenues-0428/
The only way that the numbers are going to spike is if there is a massive handset subsidy involved.
We can either define it ourselves, you can state your definition for your argument or we can use the definition enacted by others.
The problem is that there are no unbiased studies around --- they all want to be on the front pages, so they all skew their methodologies.
It's an election year in the US --- Democrats will have one set of questions for their surveys (to make themselves look good) and Republicans will have another set of questions for their survey (to make themselves look good).