Clearly. Every Apple and ATT store I know about has LOADS of iPhone just sitting on the shelves. Don't tell the people who show up at 6 AM still to buy the day's stock.
Duh....
Duh, no.
I've been told by Apple, and my wife saw it for herself when she decided to wait in line in the morning, that Apple orders phones and gets them in every day to their stores. They usually run out at th end of the day. That's why they make appointments, the number of phones available, and the number of people available to do the selling. It does take time.
Supposedly, Apple is catching up with sales around now.
So far, it's safe to say that newly manufactured phones get to retailers pretty quickly, and are out their doors and into the customers hands pretty quickly as well. I think it would be fair to assume that perhaps over 80%, or so of the manufactured phones are already sold.
Sorry to say this article is rather misleading and severely biased. I am a massive Apple fan, have the iPod Touch, Apple TV and Apple Mac, so do not want this to appear anti-Apple.
However the reality is today, Apple's market share is very small, but clearly growing well. Over time I fully expect Apple to take a nice share of the market, but not today.
Symbian on the other hand, has a nice share of the world-wide market, and it is growing very nicely. It took several year to hit 100 million handsets, but only 18 months to hit 200 million cumulative run-rate. So far from shrinking it is growing very rapidly. What you have to ask who is the major shipper of Symbian handsets? If they slow, then Symbian slows, if their overall trend is down, then so it will be with Symbian's, if their trend is up then Symbian's will be. Don't expect this quarters results to continue, it is a blip .
Also Symbian is starting to push down towards smart phones. Symbian is only held out of this market more due to royalty cost. See this article to show that trend (Symbian Foundation aside) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02...gle_challenge/.
So with all of that above including the Symbian Foundation, I would say the general trend is up.
@RichL: "If Symbian's market share dropped 20%, that's 7 million phones that have 'gone missing'."
No your math is wrong. Keep in mind that you can't meaningfully subtract percentages that relate to different numbers. The "per cents" of a percentage of market share when the market is at less than ten million units a quarter are not the same as the "per cents" of percentage of a market share in a market of 40 million units a quarter.
Symbian didn't "lose 7 million phones," it grew. However, it is simply not keeping up with the market in the same way pundits expected Apple to not keep up with the MP3 player market. However, Apple retained its ~70% market share even as the market went from very little to something like 50 million. Symbian is simply slipping behind, so my comparison of the two is valid and your complaining about my math is incorrect.
-
@ aegisdesign: I know you like to play devils advocate/troll, but your facts are all a-jumble.
"Er, second attempt or did the previous iPhone 2G not count as an attempt?" The iPhone has only had one worldwide launch in a meaningful number of Symbian's markets, with the iPhone 3G. You know that, but you're crying about the "2G" iPhone. How about also bringing up Motorola's ROKR and RAZR (or does Apple not get credit for the RAZR success, only the ROKR failure, despite having designed neither phone? I lose track of the iPhone haters talking points)
"And it's a little rich quoting Symbian's actuals against an analyst's predictions."
Given that the iPhone hasn't had a real year over year quarter yet, how else would one compare sales? Are you serious about thinking the iPhone 3G isn't cleaning Symbian's clock? More disingenuous trolling.
"Also, what is the point in showing graphs of market share and sales that stop at Q3 2007 in an article about Q2 2008 sales/share? Isn't that a little silly and undermining your argument?"
No, they're presented in the context of the last several years of competition between WiMo and RIM overseas. Both have made little progress outside of the US. The iPhone took over major share in the US in its first model, and has since made major inroads into the world wide market. Everyone said the iPhone would have a harder time that WiMo and RIM and be locked out because of existing competition and Symbian's dominance. But Symbian is slipping and WiMo and RIM are not doing gangbusters outside of the US at all.
"The second graph showing percentages of each territory is also as much use as an iPhone camera in a dark room. It doesn't show the relative sizes of each market for smartphones giving the impression that each is the same size in total."
Nice troll, but actually the columns in Canalys' chart have different widths. I'll leave it to you to figure out why that is the case. Your inability to arrive at a correct conclusion does not disprove the facts you fail to grasp.
"Quote: Originally Posted by Prince
And that fifth came out of Symbian's premium buyers, not their mass market bulk sales of simple phones.
That's just nonsense. Apple's share of the worldwide market was almost entirely from US sales where Symbian phones aren't widely available so how can Apple's market share be at Symbian's expense?"
You are confusing market share with birth right or something. Symbian wants to sell US phones.
"Quote: Originally Posted by Prince
Regardless of what Nokia does, smartphones are selling at around 35 million per quarter. Apple still grabbed more than 10% of that market and saw 400% growth over its launch. No way to blow that off, and Symbian is taking things pretty seriously / running scared.
I'm pretty sure they aren't. Nokia sold a squidillion phones last quarter. Selling more smartphones than anyone else by quite some margin isn't going to get them worried either."
So now you're running away from the subject of Symbian to talk about Nokia? And you're further running away from the subject of real future growth in the phone industry--smartphones--to take solace in the fact that Nokia sells a lot of old phones that don't even run Symbian? And you assume Nokia doesn't care about the future because of past performance? I think the word you used earlier was "rich." I'll add "richdiculous."
"They've plenty of time and their platform runs on much lower end hardware. If I were Nokia I'd be more worried about Google and Linux than Apple's boutique phones."
Is it Symbian or Nokia that should be worried about a platform that hasn't launched, instead of the one that is embarrassing it on the world market and causing its platform profits to fall flat? Again, why are you changing the subject to Nokia? It is Symbian that has failed. No doubt Nokia can scramble up an entirely new platform to compete against the iPhone due to its vast wealth and technical expertise. And I'm sure its in no hurry, as Apple won't outsell it in smartphones for at least another what, year?
Perhaps Nokia has a "come from behind" strategy like Microsoft, where it plans to fail miserably first, then announce catching up to Apple at some future point so all its delusional fans can have a religious rebirth experience.
"Quote:Originally Posted by Prince. If the Zune had grabbed 27% of the US market from Apple in its first quarter, and 12% of the world wide market in the first year, and sent the iPod down from from 75% to 55% market share, I doubt anyone could say "pfft, the new iPods are coming out later."
Who the fuck cares about market share? I'll have well made, feature rich, bug free phone thanks. When Apple ships one, I'll buy one. That's why I use Macs, not their market share."
First off, using profanity is evidence of a weak mind to express itself forcefully. But who cares about market share? I bet Nokia does. I bet Symbian does, since it goes to great pains to make it look like its isn't slipping. I bet Microsoft does, because Ballmer said it was important, despite the company's progressive slip. I bet Apple does, given that it dropped the price in order to sell the iPhone 3G more broadly. And I bet you do too, when the numbers align behind the platform you are advocating.
You're right that market share doesn't and needn't matter to consumers, but this wasn't an article about your opinion of Symbian, it was a report on Symbian's failure to keep up in the smartphone market.
-
Remember to keep your comments civil and respectful.
Sorry to say this article is rather misleading and severely biased. I am a massive Apple fan, have the iPod Touch, Apple TV and Apple Mac, so do not want this to appear anti-Apple.
However the reality is today, Apple's market share is very small, but clearly growing well. Over time I fully expect Apple to take a nice share of the market, but not today.
If by "today" you mean the current September quarter, then you'll be glad to discover that's exactly what the article addressed. It is not talking about guessed sales from next year, it's looking at what's happening now. The cited analyst's figures are based on witnessing sales, not just invented projections. Why you think this is "biased" or misleading should be articulated.
Quote:
Symbian on the other hand, has a nice share of the world-wide market, and it is growing very nicely. It took several year to hit 100 million handsets, but only 18 months to hit 200 million cumulative run-rate. So far from shrinking it is growing very rapidly. What you have to ask who is the major shipper of Symbian handsets? If they slow, then Symbian slows, if their overall trend is down, then so it will be with Symbian's, if their trend is up then Symbian's will be. Don't expect this quarters results to continue, it is a blip .
The article didn't say Symbian was shrinking. It said Symbian's growth is shrinking--rapidly. This is not a one quarter fluke. It was growing by 50% last fall, then fell to 15% (below the smartphone industry average of 35%), and is now at just 5%. That's not "nice." Its revenues are also down--not growing slowly--down, in a market where everyone has be printing money by selling bad technology. The overall phone market isn't down. Symbian is down.
Quote:
Also Symbian is starting to push down towards smart phones. Symbian is only held out of this market more due to royalty cost. See this article to show that trend (Symbian Foundation aside) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02...gle_challenge/.
So with all of that above including the Symbian Foundation, I would say the general trend is up.
The problem, noted in the headline, is that the general trend is up, but Symbian's trend isn't up enough to stay relevant, particularly when other companies are together growing 6x faster. Apple is growing nearly 100x faster. There's no way to bias those facts to paint a rosy picture of Symbian's future.
The company is essentially going out of business to give its software away for free because it can't sustain a business model of selling its OS. You've done an admirable job at putting a smilie face on things, but it does not fit the facts at hand. So when you talk about misinformation and bias, consider my factual reporting against emotional responses that seek to pacify the facts by ignoring them and pretending there's nothing to look at here.
Symbian is dying, and Nokia is going to be screwed trying to turn it around into an open source foundation while making any technical progress at the same time. Have you noticed the lag involved in turning Netscape into Mozilla? No innovation for around 5 years while the company burned through AOL's money trying to release open code. Or look at Mac OS X: Apple had an OS in 1996, but couldn't ship it as a usable product until 2002. How is Nokia going to cheat fate?
The difference of course, is that Mozilla and Apple had code worth carrying forward. Symbian is archaic rubbish that desperately needs an overhaul on many levels just to compete with today's leading products.
--
Again, before commenting with the phrases "you math is wrong" "rich" "bias" "misleading" and so on, make sure you're referencing the article and not your own opinion. It is completely possible to add illumination and correction without coming across so over the top that you fail.
Sorry to say this article is rather misleading and severely biased. I am a massive Apple fan, have the iPod Touch, Apple TV and Apple Mac, so do not want this to appear anti-Apple.
However the reality is today, Apple's market share is very small, but clearly growing well. Over time I fully expect Apple to take a nice share of the market, but not today.
Symbian on the other hand, has a nice share of the world-wide market, and it is growing very nicely. It took several year to hit 100 million handsets, but only 18 months to hit 200 million cumulative run-rate. So far from shrinking it is growing very rapidly. What you have to ask who is the major shipper of Symbian handsets? If they slow, then Symbian slows, if their overall trend is down, then so it will be with Symbian's, if their trend is up then Symbian's will be. Don't expect this quarters results to continue, it is a blip .
Also Symbian is starting to push down towards smart phones. Symbian is only held out of this market more due to royalty cost. See this article to show that trend (Symbian Foundation aside) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02...gle_challenge/.
So with all of that above including the Symbian Foundation, I would say the general trend is up.
However, it's bee well documented that Symbian's marketshare is dropping at a good clip. This is due to more competition. Apple is one of the prominent competitors, and is expected to take an increasingly larger role. I see no problem there.
I think one of the biggest challenges facing Symbian is attracting developers ... now the iPhone tools are here.
The iPhone development kit is very impressive. I got the tools working today and compiled my first application! By all accounts, Symbian development is much tougher.
But this is the real clincher. Once I finish an application, there's a clear and simple way for me to make money. Real money.
Forget features, forget power, Apple has a double whammy right there. And without the support of developers, there really isn't much point to a smartphone.
Is it Symbian or Nokia that should be worried about a platform that hasn't launched, instead of the one that is embarrassing it on the world market and causing its platform profits to fall flat? Again, why are you changing the subject to Nokia? It is Symbian that has failed. No doubt Nokia can scramble up an entirely new platform to compete against the iPhone due to its vast wealth and technical expertise. And I'm sure its in no hurry, as Apple won't outsell it in smartphones for at least another what, year?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince
First off, using profanity is evidence of a weak mind to express itself forcefully. But who cares about market share? I bet Nokia does. I bet Symbian does, since it goes to great pains to make it look like its isn't slipping. I bet Microsoft does, because Ballmer said it was important, despite the company's progressive slip. I bet Apple does, given that it dropped the price in order to sell the iPhone 3G more broadly. And I bet you do too, when the numbers align behind the platform you are advocating.
Apple has the iPhone priced at the upper end of the smart phone market, to buy the device un-subsidised and unlocked it is a very expensive device.
There are a lot of Symbian devices at various prices, providing a better coverage of the market.
Remember, not everyone wants a huge screen for browsing the web, that is not the the only thing a smart phone is used phone (Although you can buy a Symbian device with a large screen if you want)
Apple has the iPhone priced at the upper end of the smart phone market, to buy the device un-subsidised and unlocked it is a very expensive device.
There are a lot of Symbian devices at various prices, providing a better coverage of the market.
Remember, not everyone wants a huge screen for browsing the web, that is not the the only thing a smart phone is used phone (Although you can buy a Symbian device with a large screen if you want)
The Tube is coming, The Tube is coming and it is very nice.
Apple has the iPhone priced at the upper end of the smart phone market, to buy the device un-subsidised and unlocked it is a very expensive device.
There are a lot of Symbian devices at various prices, providing a better coverage of the market.
Remember, not everyone wants a huge screen for browsing the web, that is not the the only thing a smart phone is used phone (Although you can buy a Symbian device with a large screen if you want)
A lot of those Symbian phones are pretty simple though. Here in NYC the Nokia N78 goes for $440 unlocked. That's a medium level phone at best, and it's pretty expensive. You still have to pay for service. What's the advantage? Not much.
That's not "nice." Its revenues are also down--not growing slowly--down, in a market where everyone has be printing money by selling bad technology. The overall phone market isn't down. Symbian is down.
Everyone has been printing money in the cell phone industry? Really? Most manufacturers have pulled out or are facing very tough times. And most of the carriers have crippling amounts of debt. There's actually very few companies making healthy profits in the cell phone industry. Just ask Motorola or Sony Ericsson.
Prince, your knowledge of Apple is very good but it's obvious that you have no background in the cell phone industry.
Quote:
The problem, noted in the headline, is that the general trend is up, but Symbian's trend isn't up enough to stay relevant, particularly when other companies are together growing 6x faster. Apple is growing nearly 100x faster. There's no way to bias those facts to paint a rosy picture of Symbian's future.
If you're selling 1 unit a year and you start selling 2 a year, your growth looks fantastic. It's very easy for a company selling relatively low volume to post very attractive growth figures whilst its much harder for the bigger boys.
Windows Mobile favourites HTC always posts wonderful growth figures and yet they're still no-where close to the top five manufacturers.
Quote:
The difference of course, is that Mozilla and Apple had code worth carrying forward. Symbian is archaic rubbish that desperately needs an overhaul on many levels just to compete with today's leading products.
I assume you're basing your archaic "fact" on your own personal knowledge of the operating system?
A lot of those Symbian phones are pretty simple though. Here in NYC the Nokia N78 goes for $440 unlocked. That's a medium level phone at best, and it's pretty expensive. You still have to pay for service. What's the advantage? Not much.
It is higher than medium level.
Before tax it goes about the same price in Ireland, unlocked, and I can choose what ever service I want, prepaid, contract etc.
I can't buy an unlocked iPhone in Ireland, sure I can go to somewhere else in Europe, and paid the expensive price they are charging for unlocked ones, but then I have to add another couple of hundred for transport etc on.
A lot of those Symbian phones are pretty simple though. Here in NYC the Nokia N78 goes for $440 unlocked. That's a medium level phone at best, and it's pretty expensive. You still have to pay for service. What's the advantage? Not much.
I beg to differ here. Have you compared the specs of the N78 to the iPhone or even to the N95, or N82?
For the most part they share many, many features. The N78 is in no way moderately a medium level phone. It can compete with the iPhone on most levels and holds its own against its Nokia brand rivals.
Go to www.nokia.co.uk and select the Find Products link. Do a comparison. The phones that I listed here were all previous phones that I owned and I can say as a USER of these phones that the N78 is not slacking in anyway.
Everyone has been printing money in the cell phone industry? Really? Most manufacturers have pulled out or are facing very tough times. And most of the carriers have crippling amounts of debt. There's actually very few companies making healthy profits in the cell phone industry. Just ask Motorola or Sony Ericsson.
Prince, your knowledge of Apple is very good but it's obvious that you have no background in the cell phone industry.
If you're selling 1 unit a year and you start selling 2 a year, your growth looks fantastic. It's very easy for a company selling relatively low volume to post very attractive growth figures whilst its much harder for the bigger boys.
Windows Mobile favourites HTC always posts wonderful growth figures and yet they're still no-where close to the top five manufacturers.
I assume you're basing your archaic "fact" on your own personal knowledge of the operating system?
RichL,
Don't waste your time. You are talking to the #1 kool aid stirrer. Your posts are right on. Nokia sells in a month what Apple sells in a year. Symbian is not going anywhere. They will be around just as Apple will. The problem is that many, many, many here seem to feel that there should only be one phone maker. Sad, but true.
Apple has the iPhone priced at the upper end of the smart phone market, to buy the device un-subsidised and unlocked it is a very expensive device.
There are a lot of Symbian devices at various prices, providing a better coverage of the market.
Remember, not everyone wants a huge screen for browsing the web, that is not the the only thing a smart phone is used phone (Although you can buy a Symbian device with a large screen if you want)
Don't try to speak logic or common sense. It will not work. Just say that the iPhone is the Jesus phone, jump in line, get you cup and have them serve up a big helping of kool aid. Drink it and you will be in good company.
Don't try to speak logic or common sense. It will not work. Just say that the iPhone is the Jesus phone, jump in line, get you cup and have them serve up a big helping of kool aid. Drink it and you will be in good company.
That's a shame. I'm an Apple fan but people like Prince make us all look like vitriolic retards.
That's a shame. I'm an Apple fan but people like Prince make us all look like vitriolic retards.
Agreed. I too am an Apple fan. I am trying to figure out how to justify a new iPod, while having an iPhone. There are some really good people on here that can see both sides of the coin. Pretty much any time I see a "Prince" article, I just move on and don't bother to read it. You can sum it up as: Apple good, everything else bad.
To make matters worse, Nokia will launch its new Tube soon. How will I afford that?
Shame you're missing out on the fun based on your idea of what's wrong with iPhones.
Ours (version one) with very heavy usage daily haven't exhibited any bugs we are aware of, and are feature rich beyond anything out there (Blackberry users often ask for demos and drool). My wife as a successful realtor cannot imagine life without hers. It is literally a Mac in her pocket. Her Mobile Me is syncing with her PC and Mac just fine for some reason (I say this as I read all the time it doesn't work).
My sister has a Blackberry. She works for Vodafone (no not in a store) so she gets pretty much any phone free. I find that too woefully inadequate and buggy compared to my SE P910i from 2004. They're like something out of the 90s by comparision. I've stuck with the SE P910i till something much better comes along. I had a 990i for a while but it was slower and buggier and didn't sync with a Mac unlike the P910i. iPhone 3G is probably good enough to do 70% of what I'm used to with my P910i and adds a decent browser too. It's missing a few important things though - tethering and bluetooth being the main ones - that mean I'd still have to carry the SE P910i on trips.
Comments
Clearly. Every Apple and ATT store I know about has LOADS of iPhone just sitting on the shelves. Don't tell the people who show up at 6 AM still to buy the day's stock.
Duh....
Duh, no.
I've been told by Apple, and my wife saw it for herself when she decided to wait in line in the morning, that Apple orders phones and gets them in every day to their stores. They usually run out at th end of the day. That's why they make appointments, the number of phones available, and the number of people available to do the selling. It does take time.
Supposedly, Apple is catching up with sales around now.
So far, it's safe to say that newly manufactured phones get to retailers pretty quickly, and are out their doors and into the customers hands pretty quickly as well. I think it would be fair to assume that perhaps over 80%, or so of the manufactured phones are already sold.
Agreed.
Yeah, keep telling yourselves that.
However the reality is today, Apple's market share is very small, but clearly growing well. Over time I fully expect Apple to take a nice share of the market, but not today.
Symbian on the other hand, has a nice share of the world-wide market, and it is growing very nicely. It took several year to hit 100 million handsets, but only 18 months to hit 200 million cumulative run-rate. So far from shrinking it is growing very rapidly. What you have to ask who is the major shipper of Symbian handsets? If they slow, then Symbian slows, if their overall trend is down, then so it will be with Symbian's, if their trend is up then Symbian's will be. Don't expect this quarters results to continue, it is a blip
Also Symbian is starting to push down towards smart phones. Symbian is only held out of this market more due to royalty cost. See this article to show that trend (Symbian Foundation aside) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02...gle_challenge/.
So with all of that above including the Symbian Foundation, I would say the general trend is up.
No your math is wrong. Keep in mind that you can't meaningfully subtract percentages that relate to different numbers. The "per cents" of a percentage of market share when the market is at less than ten million units a quarter are not the same as the "per cents" of percentage of a market share in a market of 40 million units a quarter.
Symbian didn't "lose 7 million phones," it grew. However, it is simply not keeping up with the market in the same way pundits expected Apple to not keep up with the MP3 player market. However, Apple retained its ~70% market share even as the market went from very little to something like 50 million. Symbian is simply slipping behind, so my comparison of the two is valid and your complaining about my math is incorrect.
-
@ aegisdesign: I know you like to play devils advocate/troll, but your facts are all a-jumble.
"Er, second attempt or did the previous iPhone 2G not count as an attempt?" The iPhone has only had one worldwide launch in a meaningful number of Symbian's markets, with the iPhone 3G. You know that, but you're crying about the "2G" iPhone. How about also bringing up Motorola's ROKR and RAZR (or does Apple not get credit for the RAZR success, only the ROKR failure, despite having designed neither phone? I lose track of the iPhone haters talking points)
"And it's a little rich quoting Symbian's actuals against an analyst's predictions."
Given that the iPhone hasn't had a real year over year quarter yet, how else would one compare sales? Are you serious about thinking the iPhone 3G isn't cleaning Symbian's clock? More disingenuous trolling.
"Also, what is the point in showing graphs of market share and sales that stop at Q3 2007 in an article about Q2 2008 sales/share? Isn't that a little silly and undermining your argument?"
No, they're presented in the context of the last several years of competition between WiMo and RIM overseas. Both have made little progress outside of the US. The iPhone took over major share in the US in its first model, and has since made major inroads into the world wide market. Everyone said the iPhone would have a harder time that WiMo and RIM and be locked out because of existing competition and Symbian's dominance. But Symbian is slipping and WiMo and RIM are not doing gangbusters outside of the US at all.
"The second graph showing percentages of each territory is also as much use as an iPhone camera in a dark room. It doesn't show the relative sizes of each market for smartphones giving the impression that each is the same size in total."
Nice troll, but actually the columns in Canalys' chart have different widths. I'll leave it to you to figure out why that is the case. Your inability to arrive at a correct conclusion does not disprove the facts you fail to grasp.
"Quote: Originally Posted by Prince
And that fifth came out of Symbian's premium buyers, not their mass market bulk sales of simple phones.
That's just nonsense. Apple's share of the worldwide market was almost entirely from US sales where Symbian phones aren't widely available so how can Apple's market share be at Symbian's expense?"
You are confusing market share with birth right or something. Symbian wants to sell US phones.
"Quote: Originally Posted by Prince
Regardless of what Nokia does, smartphones are selling at around 35 million per quarter. Apple still grabbed more than 10% of that market and saw 400% growth over its launch. No way to blow that off, and Symbian is taking things pretty seriously / running scared.
I'm pretty sure they aren't. Nokia sold a squidillion phones last quarter. Selling more smartphones than anyone else by quite some margin isn't going to get them worried either."
So now you're running away from the subject of Symbian to talk about Nokia? And you're further running away from the subject of real future growth in the phone industry--smartphones--to take solace in the fact that Nokia sells a lot of old phones that don't even run Symbian? And you assume Nokia doesn't care about the future because of past performance? I think the word you used earlier was "rich." I'll add "richdiculous."
"They've plenty of time and their platform runs on much lower end hardware. If I were Nokia I'd be more worried about Google and Linux than Apple's boutique phones."
Is it Symbian or Nokia that should be worried about a platform that hasn't launched, instead of the one that is embarrassing it on the world market and causing its platform profits to fall flat? Again, why are you changing the subject to Nokia? It is Symbian that has failed. No doubt Nokia can scramble up an entirely new platform to compete against the iPhone due to its vast wealth and technical expertise. And I'm sure its in no hurry, as Apple won't outsell it in smartphones for at least another what, year?
Perhaps Nokia has a "come from behind" strategy like Microsoft, where it plans to fail miserably first, then announce catching up to Apple at some future point so all its delusional fans can have a religious rebirth experience.
"Quote:Originally Posted by Prince. If the Zune had grabbed 27% of the US market from Apple in its first quarter, and 12% of the world wide market in the first year, and sent the iPod down from from 75% to 55% market share, I doubt anyone could say "pfft, the new iPods are coming out later."
Who the fuck cares about market share? I'll have well made, feature rich, bug free phone thanks. When Apple ships one, I'll buy one. That's why I use Macs, not their market share."
First off, using profanity is evidence of a weak mind to express itself forcefully. But who cares about market share? I bet Nokia does. I bet Symbian does, since it goes to great pains to make it look like its isn't slipping. I bet Microsoft does, because Ballmer said it was important, despite the company's progressive slip. I bet Apple does, given that it dropped the price in order to sell the iPhone 3G more broadly. And I bet you do too, when the numbers align behind the platform you are advocating.
You're right that market share doesn't and needn't matter to consumers, but this wasn't an article about your opinion of Symbian, it was a report on Symbian's failure to keep up in the smartphone market.
-
Remember to keep your comments civil and respectful.
Sorry to say this article is rather misleading and severely biased. I am a massive Apple fan, have the iPod Touch, Apple TV and Apple Mac, so do not want this to appear anti-Apple.
However the reality is today, Apple's market share is very small, but clearly growing well. Over time I fully expect Apple to take a nice share of the market, but not today.
If by "today" you mean the current September quarter, then you'll be glad to discover that's exactly what the article addressed. It is not talking about guessed sales from next year, it's looking at what's happening now. The cited analyst's figures are based on witnessing sales, not just invented projections. Why you think this is "biased" or misleading should be articulated.
Symbian on the other hand, has a nice share of the world-wide market, and it is growing very nicely. It took several year to hit 100 million handsets, but only 18 months to hit 200 million cumulative run-rate. So far from shrinking it is growing very rapidly. What you have to ask who is the major shipper of Symbian handsets? If they slow, then Symbian slows, if their overall trend is down, then so it will be with Symbian's, if their trend is up then Symbian's will be. Don't expect this quarters results to continue, it is a blip
The article didn't say Symbian was shrinking. It said Symbian's growth is shrinking--rapidly. This is not a one quarter fluke. It was growing by 50% last fall, then fell to 15% (below the smartphone industry average of 35%), and is now at just 5%. That's not "nice." Its revenues are also down--not growing slowly--down, in a market where everyone has be printing money by selling bad technology. The overall phone market isn't down. Symbian is down.
Also Symbian is starting to push down towards smart phones. Symbian is only held out of this market more due to royalty cost. See this article to show that trend (Symbian Foundation aside) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02...gle_challenge/.
So with all of that above including the Symbian Foundation, I would say the general trend is up.
The problem, noted in the headline, is that the general trend is up, but Symbian's trend isn't up enough to stay relevant, particularly when other companies are together growing 6x faster. Apple is growing nearly 100x faster. There's no way to bias those facts to paint a rosy picture of Symbian's future.
The company is essentially going out of business to give its software away for free because it can't sustain a business model of selling its OS. You've done an admirable job at putting a smilie face on things, but it does not fit the facts at hand. So when you talk about misinformation and bias, consider my factual reporting against emotional responses that seek to pacify the facts by ignoring them and pretending there's nothing to look at here.
Symbian is dying, and Nokia is going to be screwed trying to turn it around into an open source foundation while making any technical progress at the same time. Have you noticed the lag involved in turning Netscape into Mozilla? No innovation for around 5 years while the company burned through AOL's money trying to release open code. Or look at Mac OS X: Apple had an OS in 1996, but couldn't ship it as a usable product until 2002. How is Nokia going to cheat fate?
The difference of course, is that Mozilla and Apple had code worth carrying forward. Symbian is archaic rubbish that desperately needs an overhaul on many levels just to compete with today's leading products.
--
Again, before commenting with the phrases "you math is wrong" "rich" "bias" "misleading" and so on, make sure you're referencing the article and not your own opinion. It is completely possible to add illumination and correction without coming across so over the top that you fail.
Sorry to say this article is rather misleading and severely biased. I am a massive Apple fan, have the iPod Touch, Apple TV and Apple Mac, so do not want this to appear anti-Apple.
However the reality is today, Apple's market share is very small, but clearly growing well. Over time I fully expect Apple to take a nice share of the market, but not today.
Symbian on the other hand, has a nice share of the world-wide market, and it is growing very nicely. It took several year to hit 100 million handsets, but only 18 months to hit 200 million cumulative run-rate. So far from shrinking it is growing very rapidly. What you have to ask who is the major shipper of Symbian handsets? If they slow, then Symbian slows, if their overall trend is down, then so it will be with Symbian's, if their trend is up then Symbian's will be. Don't expect this quarters results to continue, it is a blip
Also Symbian is starting to push down towards smart phones. Symbian is only held out of this market more due to royalty cost. See this article to show that trend (Symbian Foundation aside) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02...gle_challenge/.
So with all of that above including the Symbian Foundation, I would say the general trend is up.
However, it's bee well documented that Symbian's marketshare is dropping at a good clip. This is due to more competition. Apple is one of the prominent competitors, and is expected to take an increasingly larger role. I see no problem there.
Here are some additional "FACTS" regarding Symbian.
The iPhone development kit is very impressive. I got the tools working today and compiled my first application! By all accounts, Symbian development is much tougher.
But this is the real clincher. Once I finish an application, there's a clear and simple way for me to make money. Real money.
Forget features, forget power, Apple has a double whammy right there. And without the support of developers, there really isn't much point to a smartphone.
C.
Is it Symbian or Nokia that should be worried about a platform that hasn't launched, instead of the one that is embarrassing it on the world market and causing its platform profits to fall flat? Again, why are you changing the subject to Nokia? It is Symbian that has failed. No doubt Nokia can scramble up an entirely new platform to compete against the iPhone due to its vast wealth and technical expertise. And I'm sure its in no hurry, as Apple won't outsell it in smartphones for at least another what, year?
First off, using profanity is evidence of a weak mind to express itself forcefully. But who cares about market share? I bet Nokia does. I bet Symbian does, since it goes to great pains to make it look like its isn't slipping. I bet Microsoft does, because Ballmer said it was important, despite the company's progressive slip. I bet Apple does, given that it dropped the price in order to sell the iPhone 3G more broadly. And I bet you do too, when the numbers align behind the platform you are advocating.
Apple has the iPhone priced at the upper end of the smart phone market, to buy the device un-subsidised and unlocked it is a very expensive device.
There are a lot of Symbian devices at various prices, providing a better coverage of the market.
Remember, not everyone wants a huge screen for browsing the web, that is not the the only thing a smart phone is used phone (Although you can buy a Symbian device with a large screen if you want)
Apple has the iPhone priced at the upper end of the smart phone market, to buy the device un-subsidised and unlocked it is a very expensive device.
There are a lot of Symbian devices at various prices, providing a better coverage of the market.
Remember, not everyone wants a huge screen for browsing the web, that is not the the only thing a smart phone is used phone (Although you can buy a Symbian device with a large screen if you want)
The Tube is coming, The Tube is coming and it is very nice.
Apple has the iPhone priced at the upper end of the smart phone market, to buy the device un-subsidised and unlocked it is a very expensive device.
There are a lot of Symbian devices at various prices, providing a better coverage of the market.
Remember, not everyone wants a huge screen for browsing the web, that is not the the only thing a smart phone is used phone (Although you can buy a Symbian device with a large screen if you want)
A lot of those Symbian phones are pretty simple though. Here in NYC the Nokia N78 goes for $440 unlocked. That's a medium level phone at best, and it's pretty expensive. You still have to pay for service. What's the advantage? Not much.
That's not "nice." Its revenues are also down--not growing slowly--down, in a market where everyone has be printing money by selling bad technology. The overall phone market isn't down. Symbian is down.
Everyone has been printing money in the cell phone industry? Really? Most manufacturers have pulled out or are facing very tough times. And most of the carriers have crippling amounts of debt. There's actually very few companies making healthy profits in the cell phone industry. Just ask Motorola or Sony Ericsson.
Prince, your knowledge of Apple is very good but it's obvious that you have no background in the cell phone industry.
The problem, noted in the headline, is that the general trend is up, but Symbian's trend isn't up enough to stay relevant, particularly when other companies are together growing 6x faster. Apple is growing nearly 100x faster. There's no way to bias those facts to paint a rosy picture of Symbian's future.
If you're selling 1 unit a year and you start selling 2 a year, your growth looks fantastic. It's very easy for a company selling relatively low volume to post very attractive growth figures whilst its much harder for the bigger boys.
Windows Mobile favourites HTC always posts wonderful growth figures and yet they're still no-where close to the top five manufacturers.
The difference of course, is that Mozilla and Apple had code worth carrying forward. Symbian is archaic rubbish that desperately needs an overhaul on many levels just to compete with today's leading products.
I assume you're basing your archaic "fact" on your own personal knowledge of the operating system?
A lot of those Symbian phones are pretty simple though. Here in NYC the Nokia N78 goes for $440 unlocked. That's a medium level phone at best, and it's pretty expensive. You still have to pay for service. What's the advantage? Not much.
It is higher than medium level.
Before tax it goes about the same price in Ireland, unlocked, and I can choose what ever service I want, prepaid, contract etc.
I can't buy an unlocked iPhone in Ireland, sure I can go to somewhere else in Europe, and paid the expensive price they are charging for unlocked ones, but then I have to add another couple of hundred for transport etc on.
A lot of those Symbian phones are pretty simple though. Here in NYC the Nokia N78 goes for $440 unlocked. That's a medium level phone at best, and it's pretty expensive. You still have to pay for service. What's the advantage? Not much.
I beg to differ here. Have you compared the specs of the N78 to the iPhone or even to the N95, or N82?
For the most part they share many, many features. The N78 is in no way moderately a medium level phone. It can compete with the iPhone on most levels and holds its own against its Nokia brand rivals.
Go to www.nokia.co.uk and select the Find Products link. Do a comparison. The phones that I listed here were all previous phones that I owned and I can say as a USER of these phones that the N78 is not slacking in anyway.
Everyone has been printing money in the cell phone industry? Really? Most manufacturers have pulled out or are facing very tough times. And most of the carriers have crippling amounts of debt. There's actually very few companies making healthy profits in the cell phone industry. Just ask Motorola or Sony Ericsson.
Prince, your knowledge of Apple is very good but it's obvious that you have no background in the cell phone industry.
If you're selling 1 unit a year and you start selling 2 a year, your growth looks fantastic. It's very easy for a company selling relatively low volume to post very attractive growth figures whilst its much harder for the bigger boys.
Windows Mobile favourites HTC always posts wonderful growth figures and yet they're still no-where close to the top five manufacturers.
I assume you're basing your archaic "fact" on your own personal knowledge of the operating system?
RichL,
Don't waste your time. You are talking to the #1 kool aid stirrer. Your posts are right on. Nokia sells in a month what Apple sells in a year. Symbian is not going anywhere. They will be around just as Apple will. The problem is that many, many, many here seem to feel that there should only be one phone maker. Sad, but true.
Apple has the iPhone priced at the upper end of the smart phone market, to buy the device un-subsidised and unlocked it is a very expensive device.
There are a lot of Symbian devices at various prices, providing a better coverage of the market.
Remember, not everyone wants a huge screen for browsing the web, that is not the the only thing a smart phone is used phone (Although you can buy a Symbian device with a large screen if you want)
Don't try to speak logic or common sense. It will not work. Just say that the iPhone is the Jesus phone, jump in line, get you cup and have them serve up a big helping of kool aid. Drink it and you will be in good company.
Don't try to speak logic or common sense. It will not work. Just say that the iPhone is the Jesus phone, jump in line, get you cup and have them serve up a big helping of kool aid. Drink it and you will be in good company.
That's a shame. I'm an Apple fan but people like Prince make us all look like vitriolic retards.
That's a shame. I'm an Apple fan but people like Prince make us all look like vitriolic retards.
Agreed. I too am an Apple fan. I am trying to figure out how to justify a new iPod, while having an iPhone.
To make matters worse, Nokia will launch its new Tube soon. How will I afford that?
Shame you're missing out on the fun based on your idea of what's wrong with iPhones.
Ours (version one) with very heavy usage daily haven't exhibited any bugs we are aware of, and are feature rich beyond anything out there (Blackberry users often ask for demos and drool). My wife as a successful realtor cannot imagine life without hers. It is literally a Mac in her pocket. Her Mobile Me is syncing with her PC and Mac just fine for some reason (I say this as I read all the time it doesn't work).
My sister has a Blackberry. She works for Vodafone (no not in a store) so she gets pretty much any phone free. I find that too woefully inadequate and buggy compared to my SE P910i from 2004. They're like something out of the 90s by comparision. I've stuck with the SE P910i till something much better comes along. I had a 990i for a while but it was slower and buggier and didn't sync with a Mac unlike the P910i. iPhone 3G is probably good enough to do 70% of what I'm used to with my P910i and adds a decent browser too. It's missing a few important things though - tethering and bluetooth being the main ones - that mean I'd still have to carry the SE P910i on trips.