iPhone's share of US smartphone market rises to 28 percent
Apple Inc. managed to garner approximately 28 percent of the red hot US smartphone market during the fourth calendar quarter of 2007, up more than 43 percent from the three-month period ending September.
According to a report issued Tuesday by market analysis firm Canalys, the iPhone's 28 percent share placed it second in the US market behind only RIM's with 41 percent share, and well ahead of Palm, whose 9 percent share placed it a distant third.
The boost, up from the 19.5 percent third quarter share announced by Apple chief executive Steve Jobs at last month's Macworld Expo, was also enough to put the Mac OS X-based handset ahead of all Windows Mobile device vendors combined, whose share was 21 percent in the quarter according to the Canalys' figures.
"When you consider that it launched part way through the year, with limited operator and country coverage, and essentially just one product, Apple has shown very clearly that it can make a difference and has sent a wakeup call to the market leaders," said senior analyst Pete Cunningham. "What it must demonstrate now is that it can build a sustainable business in the converged device space, expanding its coverage and product portfolio.
In Europe, where the iPhone officially launched part way through the quarter in only three countries, Apple took the fifth spot behind Nokia, RIM, HTC and Motorola, but ahead of several established smart phone providers such as Sony Ericsson, Samsung and Palm.
Meanwhile, the Cupertino-based company's combined shipments of 2.32 million iPhones during the fourth quarter were also good enough to place it third in the worldwide smartphone market, ahead of Motorola's 2.3 million unit shipments, but behind RIM's 4.0 million and Nokia's 18.8 million.
In addition to expanding its coverage and smartphone portfolio going forward, Apple also needs to ensure that the exclusive relationships that got it so far so quickly do not prove to be a limit on what it can achieve, according to Cunningham.
"Apple?s innovation in its mobile phone user interface has prompted a lot of design activity among competitors," he said. "Experience shows that a vendor with only one smart phone design, no matter how good that design is, will soon struggle. [...] This race is a marathon, but you pretty much have to sprint every lap."
Earlier on Tuesday, Apple expanded its iPhone offerings by introducing a model with 16GB of storage for $499, which joins the existing 8GB model at $399. The new model, however, is cosmetically and functionally equivalent to the 8GB model.
According to a report issued Tuesday by market analysis firm Canalys, the iPhone's 28 percent share placed it second in the US market behind only RIM's with 41 percent share, and well ahead of Palm, whose 9 percent share placed it a distant third.
The boost, up from the 19.5 percent third quarter share announced by Apple chief executive Steve Jobs at last month's Macworld Expo, was also enough to put the Mac OS X-based handset ahead of all Windows Mobile device vendors combined, whose share was 21 percent in the quarter according to the Canalys' figures.
"When you consider that it launched part way through the year, with limited operator and country coverage, and essentially just one product, Apple has shown very clearly that it can make a difference and has sent a wakeup call to the market leaders," said senior analyst Pete Cunningham. "What it must demonstrate now is that it can build a sustainable business in the converged device space, expanding its coverage and product portfolio.
In Europe, where the iPhone officially launched part way through the quarter in only three countries, Apple took the fifth spot behind Nokia, RIM, HTC and Motorola, but ahead of several established smart phone providers such as Sony Ericsson, Samsung and Palm.
Meanwhile, the Cupertino-based company's combined shipments of 2.32 million iPhones during the fourth quarter were also good enough to place it third in the worldwide smartphone market, ahead of Motorola's 2.3 million unit shipments, but behind RIM's 4.0 million and Nokia's 18.8 million.
In addition to expanding its coverage and smartphone portfolio going forward, Apple also needs to ensure that the exclusive relationships that got it so far so quickly do not prove to be a limit on what it can achieve, according to Cunningham.
"Apple?s innovation in its mobile phone user interface has prompted a lot of design activity among competitors," he said. "Experience shows that a vendor with only one smart phone design, no matter how good that design is, will soon struggle. [...] This race is a marathon, but you pretty much have to sprint every lap."
Earlier on Tuesday, Apple expanded its iPhone offerings by introducing a model with 16GB of storage for $499, which joins the existing 8GB model at $399. The new model, however, is cosmetically and functionally equivalent to the 8GB model.
Comments
MUHAHAHAHahahahahahahahahahahaha
remember all those statements their CEO released about how they weren't worried about the iphone. ballmer too. wow. i bet he cringes everytime he sees that video of himself up on youtube
You think baller watches You Tube?? thats a google service!!!
You think baller watches You Tube?? thats a google service!!!
Well, I'm sure he's seen it on Windows Live Video Tube or whatever they call it...
The iPhone will fail just like the MacBook Air did...
Heh.
Should be highly successful then.
"Apple?s innovation in its mobile phone user interface has prompted a lot of design activity among competitors," he said. "Experience shows that a vendor with only one smart phone design, no matter how good that design is, will soon struggle. [...] This race is a marathon, but you pretty much have to sprint every lap."
I call BS. IMHO, The iPhone demonstrated that having one solid design can be very successful. All these copycats are just poor imitations of a superior product.
And besides, Apple is used to sprinting. That can't be said of most other phone makers...
Those "missing" iPhones that have turned up all over the world are proof of that.
If Apple had allowed people to buy them anywhere, from anyone, they might very well have sold twice as many already.
The idea of getting monthly "kickbacks" from carriers may give them a higher profit, but will hold down their sales, and marketshare.
We are already seeing reluctance from some of the biggest operators in the far east to enter into agreements with Apple over this.
Apple will either have to drop some financial requirements, or lose those contracts.
The unlocked phones are showing that carriers are mattering less and less.
The only problem is the loss of revenue from people not picking up the contracts yet.
The unlocked phones will aid in spreading the iPhone into new markets where Apple can come into even more pent up demand.
I agree that these carrier specific agreements, are, and will hold Apple back in the long run.
Those "missing" iPhones that have turned up all over the world are proof of that.
If Apple had allowed people to buy them anywhere, from anyone, they might very well have sold twice as many already.
Yes, however, the $250 Apple makes on every install generates more net profit than if they sold twice as much 'opened".
The idea of getting monthly "kickbacks" from carriers may give them a higher profit, but will hold down their sales, and marketshare.
"Kickback" is a term implying, "a payment made to someone who has facilitated a transaction or appointment, esp. illicitly." Apple's agreement with AT&T is signed and opened to those privileged to see. A "Commission of Contract" would be a better description.
As well, coming into the market as Apple did, i.e., a new kid on the block, was no guarantee for success. Creating a demand on a demand can be a lot more profitable in the long term than simply filling a demand created by the early adopters.
We are already seeing reluctance from some of the biggest operators in the far east to enter into agreements with Apple over this.
Not sure to whom you are referring. As demonstrated quite recently, the so-called negotiations with China were in fact "so-called," and evidently, a figment of somebodies' imaginations.
Apple will either have to drop some financial requirements, or lose those contracts.
For years we have been forced to pay using the air in which we breathe. Locked into long-term contracts, more often by government dictates, and seduced by offerings of 'free-goods' that aren't truly free or good.
If we examine the current state of affairs, we find that data plans in particular have dropped significantly in price since the advent of the iPhone. And for those that weren't around in '84, it was Jobs that introduced MacWrite priced at $125 with the expectations that softwares to come would be significantly lower than the $500+ ponies one had to shell out for a DOS counterpart. That, and considering Apple's continued policy to not only make things simpler to use but at a price, if any, simpler to accept.
As such, I am not worried that Apple may drop or lose some contracts because I am confident that any replacement will still be more beneficial to us. Perhaps it is wishful thinking. However, I don't like to pay more for using the air we breathe in, and I don't think the Jobs does either.
It does. but that is also holding back sales. If Apple wants to continue the iPhone as a niche product, then fine. I don't like the idea though, and it also results in higher prices for the customer of the service, because they must make up for the loss by charging higher prices for the contract. so, in the end, it's the customer that is paying Apple. A hidden cost.
"Kickback" is a term implying, "a payment made to someone who has facilitated a transaction or appointment, esp. illicitly." Apple's agreement with AT&T is signed and opened to those privileged to see. A "Commission of Contract" would be a better description.
That's why I used quotes. Besides, in a way, it is. The idea that Apple, no doubt, had, was that this phone is going to be so popular, and will add so many people to your customer lists, that you owe us for that, and if we don't get it, then you don't get the phone. That's a kickback.
As well, coming into the market as Apple did, i.e., a new kid on the block, was no guarantee for success. Creating a demand on a demand can be a lot more profitable in the long term than simply filling a demand by the early adopters.
but, also, Apple has been so hot, and the hype so great, that it's not inconceivable that the carriers were concerned that they wouldn't get it.
Not sure to whom you are referring. As demonstrated quite recently, the so-called negotiations with China were in fact "so-called," and evidently, a figment of somebodies' imaginations.
Not true. Of course, Jobs played it down. But the head of the China company did state that they WERE negotiating, and also, that they would NOT pay a portion of their income to Apple.
For years we have been forced to pay in the air that we breathe. Locked into long-term contracts, more often by government dictates, and seduced by offerings of 'free-goods' that aren't truly free or good.
If we examine the current state of affairs, we find that data plans in particular have dropped significantly in price since the advent of the iPhone. And for those that weren't around in '84, it was Jobs that introduced MacWrite priced at $125 with the expectations that softwares to come would be significantly lower than the $500 ponies for a DOS counterpart. That, and considering Apple's continued policy to not only make things simpler to use but at a price, if any, simpler to accept.
As such, I am not worried that Apple may drop or loose some contracts because I am confident that any replacement will be more beneficial to us. Perhaps it is wishful thinking. However, I don't like to pay for more the air we breathe in, and I don't think the Jobs does either.
Well we'll see. But, so far, Apple has not shown any reason why we should think so. They are charging the phone companies after all. That's a fact.
If that counts as your "air", then you will pay for it, unless you can get an unlocked phone that isn't being overcharged for the ability, as we see in Europe.
I may not be back until tomorrow, so if you reply, that's why no answer.
The iPhone will fail just like the MacBook Air did...
Post of the day!
I
And besides, Apple is used to sprinting. That can't be said of most other phone makers...
Actually, the Sprints of the world should be appl-ing...
I agree that these carrier specific agreements, are, and will hold Apple back in the long run.
If Apple had allowed people to buy them anywhere, from anyone, they might very well have sold twice as many already.
This is true but this does not seem the point of Apple's strategy. From what we can tell Apple does not just want to throw a phone out there and hope for the best, Apple wants to have full control of the iPhone platform and its growth.
I agree at some point Apple needs to offer the phone to more carriers. And based on the iPhones acceptance will be able to do that from a stronger position.
We are already seeing reluctance from some of the biggest operators in the far east to enter into agreements with Apple over this.
This is just all bluster and show for negotiations.
And besides, Apple is used to sprinting. That can't be said of most other phone makers...
Ain't that the truth. Smartphone makers have been getting it wrong for 16 years, and then Apple comes in and gets it right on their first try. I don't know if it's funny or sad.
This is true but this does not seem the point of Apple's strategy. From what we can tell Apple does not just want to throw a phone out there and hope for the best, Apple wants to have full control of the iPhone platform and its growth.
I agree at some point Apple needs to offer the phone to more carriers. And based on the iPhones acceptance will be able to do that from a stronger position.
This is just all bluster and show for negotiations.
No to both. We now see that sales are not up to expectations anyway. you can't argue that point anymore. This doesn't help in any way.
Just because Apple has a plan, doesn't mean that it's a good plan.
You also can't say that this is bluster. They may very well feel as though the iPhone isn't such a big deal to them. This would be justified by the slow sales around Europe.
No to both. We now see that sales are not up to expectations anyway. you can't argue that point anymore. This doesn't help in any way.
The over all sales are fine. Its just that more phones than expected ended up in the grey market than signed to carrier contracts. European sales projections would have been met had all of the sold phones been signed to carrier contracts.
Just because Apple has a plan, doesn't mean that it's a good plan.
I've never given an opinion whether it was a good plan or a bad plan. I'm just saying this is their plan. Time will tell if it works or not.
You also can't say that this is bluster. They may very well feel as though the iPhone isn't such a big deal to them. This would be justified by the slow sales around Europe.
You can't really say it isn't bluster. The iPhone is already being sold in Asia. They do really want the iPhone but of course don't want the revenue sharing deal.
The over all sales are fine. Its just that more phones than expected ended up in the grey market than signed to carrier contracts. European sales projections would have been met had all of the sold phones been signed to carrier contracts.
Teno, you really have to give it up. Overseas sales are NOT fine. None have met their targets. Ther have been enough news stories confirming that over the psst week or so for even you to understand.
i know you like your phone, but get real.
I've never given an opinion whether it was a good plan or a bad plan. I'm just saying this is their plan. Time will tell if it works or not.
I'll still say that it's a bad plan.
You can't really say it isn't bluster. The iPhone is already being sold in Asia. They do really want the iPhone but of course don't want the revenue sharing deal.
You cant say it is. The number of phones sold around the world, unlocked, seems to be nice, but it totally trivial when compared to what they would be if Apple was already there and selling phones.
You also don't know if what Jobs has said isn't bluster. You seen to be thinking that whatever he says is true and proper, and what anyone else says isn't.
Overseas sales are NOT fine.
There are reports that the phone is nearly in every country around the planet. Over seas sales are fine just in an unexpected way. If all 4 million phones stayed in the four countries with the four carriers they were intended we wouldn't be having this debate.
You cant say it is. The number of phones sold around the world, unlocked, seems to be nice, but it totally trivial when compared to what they would be if Apple was already there and selling phones.
iPhones on sale in China clearly show their is a demand for it. Of course Chinese carriers want to fill that demand. I'm saying they are downplaying how much they want it because they don't want the revenue sharing deal.
You also don't know if what Jobs has said isn't bluster. You seen to be thinking that whatever he says is true and proper, and what anyone else says isn't.
Yeah their is blustering from both sides it goes with negotiations.