Sometimes, our desire to put Apple in a "better light" make us accept deceptive analysis, as if they are facts. And this data is a case in point.
Let us take two extreme examples
Phone 1
2010 1stQ => 6,000
2009 1stQ => 1,000
Difference => 5,000
% Growth => 500%
Phone 2
2010 1stQ => 2,000,000
2009 1stQ => 1,000,000
Difference => 1,000,000
% Growth => 100%
It seems that Phone 1 is having a remarkable growth, and it is at 500% per year. But to suggest that it is having a better year than Phone 2 because the latter only has 100% growth per year is not accurate analysis, especially when you focus solely of the percent (%) annual growth.
In fact: Assume that Phone 1 would be able to grow at a remarkable pace of 500% per year for the next five years, and Phone 2 also has an annual growth rate of 100% per year the next five years. You might think that Phone 1 would surpass Phone 2, after five (5) years. But that is not the case. After five (5) years:
Phone 1
2014 1stQ => 7,776,000
2009 1stQ => 1,000
Difference => 7,775,000
% Growth => 777,500%
Phone 2
2014 1stQ => 32,000,000
2009 1stQ => 1,000,000
Difference => 31,000,000
% Growth => 3,000%
As you can see, the percent (%) growth of Phone 1 (777,500%) is phenomenal with respect to Phone 2 (3,000%). However, Phone 2 would still remain the premier phone manufacturer.
To relate this to the data presented. The annual growth of iPhone wrt to Nokia and RIMM seems to be remarkable 132% (Apple) vs 57% (Nokia) and 45% (RIMM). However, the actual net change between Nokia and iPhone, in terms of units sold is still remarkably in favor of Nokia by a wide margin.
Can the iPhone keep up with Nokia and RIMM? The iPhone may or may not keep up with the other phone makers. It is even possible that the total Android smartphones may surpass the iPhone, if it has not already done so.
The analogy here is the case of computers, where Apple primary goal is not to become the major computer manufacturer. Steve Jobs has already conceded this to the Wintel companies.
The main difference is in the profit margin where the Apple iPhone beats all the competition. The profit margin difference is the reason why the iPhone may be eclipsed by all the top five major phone makers; and yet, the net profit of Apple from the iPhone may still eclipse or not much lower than the combined profit of the other manufacturers. Another good example of this is the net profit of Apple in the Mac computers vs the combined computer component profit of the other computer manufacturers -- even if the latter combined constitute 80-90% of the total computers manufactured.
CGC
You raise excellent points.
But: "The profit margin difference is the reason why the iPhone may be eclipsed by all the top five major phone makers; and yet, the net profit of Apple from the iPhone may still eclipse or not much lower than the combined profit of the other manufacturers. "
This is great for Apple's owners. But it is not good for Apple's customers. Most people here are Apple customers.
I think it's likely in that timeframe. And from everything I've seen, inevitable. It's a free, modern OS. that any vendor can use. We'll see it for smart-PMPs, smartphones, tablets and netbooks. There are just too many vendors out there for it to not be tops for OS marketshare... providing another (better) free solution doesn't crop up in the next two years and Apple doesn't license their OS (laugh).
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG
You raise excellent points.
Yes he does. Percentages are only valid when quantified.
Quote:
This is great for Apple's owners. But it is not good for Apple's customers. Most people here are Apple customers.
That's great for Apple customers, too. Without the iPhone being as desirable as it is there would have no viable market to draw customers in thereby pushing the rest of the industry to follow suit partly trying to out innovate but mostly follow in Apple's footsteps. Check out Android before the iPhone was announced as Exhibit A.
Sometimes, our desire to put Apple in a "better light" make us accept deceptive analysis, as if they are facts. And this data is a case in point.
LOTS OF GRADESCHOOL STATISTICS
Can the iPhone keep up with Nokia and RIMM?...
The main difference is in the profit margin where the Apple iPhone beats all the competition...
CGC
Why do you bother with all that stuff about basic unit share data (% vs. absolute growth, I ask you?) when you then correctly state lower down that it is pretty irrelevant to Apple and the realities of the market. Share of revenue and profit are much more valuable measures of market success. Since all we get are these pointless unit stats, you are right, people spend way too much time and effort on them.
What is important from these stats is that iPhone can grow at a very fast rate, on a very large number of sales, at a very high price, with still somewhat limited distribution (compared to RIM/Nokia/Sam). On those terms it blows everyone but RIM away (though they get about half the ASP/profit $s per phone that Apple does).
Nokia's unit share growth is irrelevant if it is cheap music phones with browsers (which it is) which don't even use any modern Symbian or Meego OS, don't use OVI services much etc. and so achieve no meaningful Nokia agenda items. N- & E-series phones are less than 50% of that unit sales figure. Nokias ASP for smartphones is about 25% of Apple's ($161 vs. $600) and relative profitability is probably worse than that. Apple already drives double the revenue and profit from smartphones that Nokia does.
Android is a different story since it is owned by Google who make nothing directly on it. Those sales are by Moto, HTC and Samsung etc. None of their models have remotely achieved the scale to compete with Apple (Moto=2.3M including all Droid, Cliq, Devour sales). Adding them up to create "Android OS market share" is a much more nebulous concept since the benefits are diverse and largely indirect. If it becomes commoditized then there will be a race to the bottom amongst handset makers (like Windows) and if it fragments (add-on UIs etc.) it loses the benefits of scale. Google doesn't care since it still makes ad $s on every version but the handset guys who compete with Apple will - either lower prices or more cost, both will reduce margins on various lower scale handsets.
Even today, I will lay you odds that the HTC EVO 4G makes HTC far less money than an equivalent iPhone makes Apple. They probably charge Sprint about the same or even a little lower, but have to pay for the larger screen, 4G radios, bigger battery etc. and they will sell far fewer (new phone, poor distribution, etc.) maybe 1M a quarter. Sprint have to pay an iPhone sized subsidy for less contract revenue (due to Sprint's lower rates) - everyone's a loser (except the customer - yay us!)
Can the iPhone keep up with Nokia and RIMM? The iPhone may or may not keep up with the other phone makers. It is even possible that the total Android smartphones may surpass the iPhone, if it has not already done so.
You make some great points about percentages shouldn't be a determination in and of themselves for success, but AI did present the unit sales, too. You can clearly see that both RiM and Nokia sold more units and that Nokia's unit increase dwarfed Apple's unit increase, but even that isn't a good scale to measure success as this include cost or profit, things actually important to companies, not the piddly stats used for marketing.
Quote:
The analogy here is the case of computers, where Apple primary goal is not to become the major computer manufacturer. Steve Jobs has already conceded this to the Wintel companies.
This is a horrible comparison. Apple is a major PC maker and is a major handset maker. Not selling the most units doesn't negate the fact that they have the mindshare, have the most profit, and may also likely take in the most revenue in both their handset and PC areas.
Quote:
The main difference is in the profit margin where the Apple iPhone beats all the competition.
A large part of their profit margin being higher than others is not because it's excessive, as other companies charge about the same (if not more) for a similarly categorized item, but because they choose not to compete in the areas with little to no profit margin. You take a top of the line Dell or HP and a larger percentage of that item will be profit, but you'll also get other things from the deal. For example, better service, better build quality and better engineering.
Also, some of the price hike may be to offset by their cheaper PCs (which we see all the time in up-selling), another part may be their lack of economy of scale (Apple's has done wonders on this front with a "boutique" lineup and now milled aluminum), and another may be because they don't sell as much crapware space on their flagship machines like they do for their $400 notebooks.
As I recall, Acer recently squeezed past Apple in unit sales due to netbooks. I'd say Acer wishes they could change places with Apple.
But: "The profit margin difference is the reason why the iPhone may be eclipsed by all the top five major phone makers; and yet, the net profit of Apple from the iPhone may still eclipse or not much lower than the combined profit of the other manufacturers. "
This is great for Apple's owners. But it is not good for Apple's customers. Most people here are Apple customers.
Unit sales and market share are of no relevance to Apple customers either, and this is what this posting is about. We here are (mostly) Apple fans so are interested in the implications of these statistics for Apple as a company. As customers there are other posts where we get to complain about functionality or AT&Ts lousy service or moon over what might be in the HD/4. Apple making industry leading profits while selling their phones at industry-matching prices ($99, $199, $299) is a great tradeoff for customers. You think that the on- or off-contract price of an Evo 4G or Incredible is less than that of an iPhone (3GS or 4/HD)? The customer is not getting hurt in this (mostly the carriers suck it up) and Apple does not owe you or anyone but their shareholders any of their smartly-earned cash. As long as you are not being gouged unfairly for an iPhone, why complain about Apple's success?
Unit sales and market share are of no relevance to Apple customers either
Of course they are. With a smaller unit sales/market share, there is a smaller ecosystem. With popular products, lots of software and accessories are available.
In addition to the ecosystem, high unit sales implies wide availability, which usually leads to discounting.
High market share or unit sales of a product are good for the product's consumers.
Nokia's unit share growth is irrelevant if it is cheap music phones with browsers (which it is) which don't even use any modern Symbian or Meego OS, don't use OVI services much etc. and so achieve no meaningful Nokia agenda items. N- & E-series phones are less than 50% of that unit sales figure. Nokias ASP for smartphones is about 25% of Apple's ($161 vs. $600) and relative profitability is probably worse than that. Apple already drives double the revenue and profit from smartphones that Nokia does.
These charts are for smartphones, so why would you even mention Series 40 phones from Nokia, the phones listed in the Nokia smartphone figure will be Symbian and Maemo, they use OVI series etc. Maybe you should go back and actually look at the products before you show your lack of knowledge.
And talking about ASP and profits shows you have no argument as from the consumers point of view they want value for money, not the most profitable for the manufacturer.
Can someone explain why is it that Nokia still holds such a large market share overseas? Every single review of their phones for the past two years has been poor. Out of all the smartphone OSs, I'd choose Symbian last. Am I missing something here?
Because in some countries, Nokia enjoys the kind of rock star status than Apple enjoys in the US. Customers are loyal. Customers get used to a certain way of doing things, no matter how unintuitive it may seem to new users.
And remember that virtually all the reviews you read are written from an American perspective. It's the equivalent of only reading American articles on soccer. You'd think it was the least important and least popular sport in the world if you did so.
Of course they are. With a smaller unit sales/market share, there is a smaller ecosystem. With popular products, lots of software and accessories are available.
In addition to the ecosystem, high unit sales implies wide availability, which usually leads to discounting.
High market share or unit sales of a product are good for the product's consumers.
All your points are potentially valid but absolutely are not directly driven by high market share.
Apple has the strongest ecosystem by far without the highest sales. The profitability of the average Apple customer (what they spend on apps/content etc.) are more direct drivers of the strength of an ecosystem. High sales and share may help if they are the right kind of customers, or may hinder by commoditizing the ecosystem.
NOKs ecosystem should be massive and powerful but it is weak and anemic. Scale is by no means everything.
What is particularly impressive about Apple is that they don't discount, don't BOGOF and still sell so many. Selling more by these methods doesn't make sense for Apple as a business.
Does MS/Windows' crushing high market share help customers - did it make Win upgrades cheaper (no - very expensive until the Vista debacle), did it make Office cheaper (obviously no). Your points are largely theoretical and not particularly valid in these cases.
These charts are for smartphones, so why would you even mention Series 40 phones from Nokia, the phones listed in the Nokia smartphone figure will be Symbian and Maemo, they use OVI series etc. Maybe you should go back and actually look at the products before you show your lack of knowledge.
And talking about ASP and profits shows you have no argument as from the consumers point of view they want value for money, not the most profitable for the manufacturer.
There are weak S60 phones too with dinky little screens but they still run "Symbian". Not competitive to any real smartphone but counted in the numbers. If you only count N& E series, apparently you halve Nokia's smartphone numbers. I support Nokia's democratic desire to ship cheap-ass symbian phones to the eager masses. Good for them, but it ain't great business and shouldn't be used to pretend it makes them competitive to more focused smartphone makers.
I said that the customer can look after themselves. You think iPhone is a rip, don't buy it. This thread was about sales and share - an industry discussion, not a consumer interest piece. I realize NOK is indefensible as a business so you keep going on about consumers. They continue to make their choices without your help.
but: "the profit margin difference is the reason why the iphone may be eclipsed by all the top five major phone makers; and yet, the net profit of apple from the iphone may still eclipse or not much lower than the combined profit of the other manufacturers. "
I should modify my main point, to make it more clear:
The main difference is in the profit margin where the apple iphone beats all the competition. Thus, it is possible that the total unit sales of Apple may be eclipsed by all the top five major phone makers combined. however, the profit margin difference of the iPhone will still provite a net profit (net income) that still eclipse or may not be much lower than the combined profit of the other manufacturers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG
this is great for apple's owners. but it is not good for apple's customers. most people here are apple customers.
What you raised is sometimes referred to by those who do not like Apple as "Apple tax".
I had a detailed response to your question, based from personal experience but it got so long. To summarize, if other Mac users were like myself, many decided to use Mac and other Apple products -- in spite of the higher cost -- for a numbers of reasons:
Ease of use and intuitive use: I was able to use my first Apple computer without reading any instruction manual.
Durability: My first Apple Classic lasted for almost 7 years. The green bondi iMac I bought in 1998 or 1999 (not sure now) is still working. My iBook bought in late 2003 remains my main laptop. Of course, they are much slower now compared to newer Apple products. In contrast, in a number of institutions I was connected with, PC computers while "cheaper" also had to be replaced more often.\t
It just works: They seldom brokedown. I did not encounter any virus. I had problem with my iBook. I had issues with my iBook when it was new but it turned out, it might have been the extra RAM chip I added using a third party RAM chip. After that, the problem encountered vanished. If my computer froze, usually, it was because I had so many applications opens, sometimes each with multiple windows. Just restart and it worked again. In contrast, in a number of institutions I was connected with, PC computers especially those used by the secretaries and non-tech personnel broke down more often or were on occasion infected with virus.
Support and Apple Store: Before the Apple Store existed, I could rely on Apple technical support to diagnose the problem for me over the phone, sometimes I talked to them for hours. They provided support, even if it was third party accessories caused the problems. Usually, it was a third accesory that caused the problem. Now, when I am close to an Apple Store, I just visit the store to ask support questions. The staff were always very helpful. In fact, even if it is a third party accessory or sometimes not even directly related to Apple products, the Apple Store staff would try their best to help. The Apple Store also allow you to try their products before you buy.
One-on-One support and training: For Apple users who need more handholding or tutorial, the $99 dollar a year one-on-one is a very big incentive for many older people or non-techies. The Apple Store also have regular seminars, for free, for many of their softwares and for their products.
Other resources and services: Apart from the many offerings of the Apple Store (if you are near one), how many companies offer resources and services, like the Apple Apps, iTunes, iBooks, Mobile Me, etc.? The tens of thousands of free Apps, eBooks, not provided by other manufacturers may have intangible values that exceed the cost of the Apple product.
The Apple Ecosystem: A number of developers and quite a number of individuals are not too enthusiastic with the vertically integrated ecosystem that supports Apple products. To many of the average, non-techie Apple consumers find this "walled garden" of the Apple ecosystem to be a welcome feature
.
In effect, therefore, while the initial cost of an Apple product may be more than the comparable Wintel PC, the total operational costs of owning a PC would likely be higher. There are also other premium benefits offered through Apple Services ("e.g., one-on-one support and training) and the Apple Ecosystem not usually offered or possible by many other manufacturers.
There are weak S60 phones too with dinky little screens but they still run "Symbian". Not competitive to any real smartphone but counted in the numbers. If you only count N& E series, apparently you halve Nokia's smartphone numbers. I support Nokia's democratic desire to ship cheap-ass symbian phones to the eager masses. Good for them, but it ain't great business and shouldn't be used to pretend it makes them competitive to more focused smartphone makers.
Can you please list all the S60 phones that you don't think shouldn't be classed as smartphones and the reason for each one as to why you think that way?
[*] Ease of use and intuitive use: I was able to use my first Apple computer without reading any instruction manual.
I was able to use my first PC without reading any instruction manual either, not sure of your point there, and I had to get that PC as I could justify spending the extra 25% for a Mac that was slower, and a mono screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202
[*] Durability: My first Apple Classic lasted for almost 7 years. The green bondi iMac I bought in 1998 or 1999 (not sure now) is still working. My iBook bought in late 2003 remains my main laptop. Of course, they are much slower now compared to newer Apple products. In contrast, in a number of institutions I was connected with, PC computers while "cheaper" also had to be replaced more often.\t
A PC will last just as long, I just had one I purchased in 99 retired, it was still working fine, just a little slow. And if the Mac cost you 25% more, you would expect it to last 25% longer
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202
[*] It just works: They seldom brokedown. I did not encounter any virus. I had problem with my iBook. I had issues with my iBook when it was new but it turned out, it might have been the extra RAM chip I added using a third party RAM chip. After that, the problem encountered vanished. If my computer froze, usually, it was because I had so many applications opens, sometimes each with multiple windows. Just restart and it worked again. In contrast, in a number of institutions I was connected with, PC computers especially those used by the secretaries and non-tech personnel broke down more often or were on occasion infected with virus.
That may be your experience, but none of my PCs have broken down anymore times than any of my Macs, they have all worked fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202
[*] Support and Apple Store: Before the Apple Store existed, I could rely on Apple technical support to diagnose the problem for me over the phone, sometimes I talked to them for hours.
Lucky you have an Apple store, most of the world doesn't have access to them, so you are stuck dealing with Apple remotely, and in some cases they trade from another country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202
[*] One-on-One support and training: For Apple users who need more handholding or tutorial, the $99 dollar a year one-on-one is a very big incentive for many older people or non-techies. The Apple Store also have regular seminars, for free, for many of their softwares and for their products.
if you are lucky enough to live near an Apple store I suppose that could be handy, but also, let's remember your first point, you know the one about not needing an instruction manual?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202
In effect, therefore, while the initial cost of an Apple product may be more than the comparable Wintel PC, the total operational costs of owning a PC would likely be higher. There are also other premium benefits offered through Apple Services ("e.g., one-on-one support and training) and the Apple Exosystem not usually offered or possible by many other manufacturers.
CGC
I'm note sure what you mean, I don't do anymore support on my PCs than my Macs, they don't cost me any extra in running costs than my Macs.
You purchase something because you want them, you purchase them because they provide a cost benefit to yourself, you don't have to justify your purchase of a computer, or phone regardless of brand to anyone
I'm note sure what you mean, I don't do anymore support on my PCs than my Macs, they don't cost me any extra in running costs than my Macs.
You're not sure what he means because you're only looking at PC vs. Mac cost of ownership from your own perspective, as a tech savvy geek. You're ignoring the layman's perspective.
The vast majority of people are not tech savvy geeks who can configure their own PC, fix it when something goes wrong and install free AV software, run it correctly and keep their system free from spyware. Most people DO pay for AV software. Most people DO pay for tech support.
Then there are the people who CAN maintain their own machines, but their time is too valuable to spend doing it, so they'd rather have something that just works.
For all of those people, it is cheaper to own a Mac. Period.
Can you please list all the S60 phones that you don't think shouldn't be classed as smartphones and the reason for each one as to why you think that way?
I'd take this one step further.
What on Earth makes the distinction that a phone is a "Smartphone"?
Let's compare a typical "dumbphone" to a "smartphone".
A smartphone can run third-party apps.
A dumbphone can too (J2ME, Symbian, etc.)
A smartphone can browse the internet.
A dumbphone can too (Opera Mini, etc.).
A smartphone has organizer funtions.
So does a dumbphone.
Please, someone tell me, what the hell is the difference?
Isn't it time we retire the "smartphone" name and just call a phone a phone?
I had the iPhone 3g, and while I liked it, I did not love it. A lot of that had to do with AT&T. I think Apple makes fantastic products, but I don't think the iPhone was really for me.
For starters, I really don't prefer touchscreen over QWERTY keyboards. I never could, and probably never will, be able to get used to that.
I have a Blackberry Bold 9700 now, and it is faster than my iPhone was. I love it, and love the service.
But that's not to say I don't love Apple. I am actually going to be getting my Macbook Pro this coming month. I absolutely love these units, and Blackberry Desktop Manager runs way faster on them than in a Windows environment.
Maybe because I'm not a fanboy and don't feel a need to defend RIM or Apple, I can have it both ways. I wouldn't give my Bold up anytime soon because it does everything I need a phone to do. Blackberry still beats iPhone in the messaging department, and with Blackberry Enterprise Server, it smokes in Enterprise.
If Apple could ever make a phone with a keyboard as great as the ones they use on their computers, I'd definitely give it a second thought. I loved the multimedia and some of the apps for the iPhone, but honestly I have yet to find an app on their that is close to Social Scope or Personal Assistant in terms of how much I actually use them.
RIM isn't a bad company and the construction of the Bold 9700 is top-notch. I'm very happy with it, and will be super happy with the MBP.
I might also get an iPad. I really like that a lot more than the iPhone or iPod Touch.
Lots of Blackberry users were kind of snooty because their Fortune 500 company gave them the device. Now they are feeling left out of the latest technology.
I don't feel left out. I bought mine, and the 9700 Bold is a badass unit. It takes amazing video and pics, and it pounds anything out there for messaging. Since messaging is primarily what I needed a phone for, the Bold 9700 beat the iPhone hands down.
Plus, don't forget AT&T isn't a great company. I detest Apple's relationship with them.
My Bold hooked up to a Macbook Pro will tether a lot better than the iPhone will.
You're not sure what he means because you're only looking at PC vs. Mac cost of ownership from your own perspective, as a tech savvy geek. You're ignoring the layman's perspective.
So it is ok for him to post based on his own perspective, but not someone else, ok.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton
The vast majority of people are not tech savvy geeks who can configure their own PC, fix it when something goes wrong and install free AV software, run it correctly and keep their system free from spyware. Most people DO pay for AV software. Most people DO pay for tech support.
Yes, and they do for Macs as well, if they have an issue with their Mac they will also have to go to someone to help them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton
Then there are the people who CAN maintain their own machines, but their time is too valuable to spend doing it, so they'd rather have something that just works.
Considering the prices I saw at a local Mac serive agent when I had to take my Mac in repair, their time must be real valuable, tech support places are very expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton
For all of those people, it is cheaper to own a Mac. Period.
I still don't see your logic, Macs have issues, they are not as foolproof as people make them out to be, so according to you, these people will have to pay to get their Mac supported, probably more so due to the limited number of places supporting them, so where does the cost saving come in?
I still don't see your logic, Macs have issues, they are not as foolproof as people make them out to be, so according to you, these people will have to pay to get their Mac supported, probably more so due to the limited number of places supporting them, so where does the cost saving come in?
Macs have issues FAR less frequently than PCs do (for the layman). It's not an Apple to Apple comparison. And Macs do have warranty coverage. PCs commonly have issues, like malware, that warranties don't cover. Someone has to pay for that.
Not to mention you've totally ignored the AV software point.
Yes, you can get free AV software for the PC. But does the layman know that, and can they install, configure it, and keep it up to date themselves? The fact is that the majority of the non-geeks pay for whatever anti-virus program comes pre-installed.
Comments
Sometimes, our desire to put Apple in a "better light" make us accept deceptive analysis, as if they are facts. And this data is a case in point.
Let us take two extreme examples
Phone 1
2010 1stQ => 6,000
2009 1stQ => 1,000
Difference => 5,000
% Growth => 500%
Phone 2
2010 1stQ => 2,000,000
2009 1stQ => 1,000,000
Difference => 1,000,000
% Growth => 100%
It seems that Phone 1 is having a remarkable growth, and it is at 500% per year. But to suggest that it is having a better year than Phone 2 because the latter only has 100% growth per year is not accurate analysis, especially when you focus solely of the percent (%) annual growth.
In fact: Assume that Phone 1 would be able to grow at a remarkable pace of 500% per year for the next five years, and Phone 2 also has an annual growth rate of 100% per year the next five years. You might think that Phone 1 would surpass Phone 2, after five (5) years. But that is not the case. After five (5) years:
Phone 1
2014 1stQ => 7,776,000
2009 1stQ => 1,000
Difference => 7,775,000
% Growth => 777,500%
Phone 2
2014 1stQ => 32,000,000
2009 1stQ => 1,000,000
Difference => 31,000,000
% Growth => 3,000%
As you can see, the percent (%) growth of Phone 1 (777,500%) is phenomenal with respect to Phone 2 (3,000%). However, Phone 2 would still remain the premier phone manufacturer.
To relate this to the data presented. The annual growth of iPhone wrt to Nokia and RIMM seems to be remarkable 132% (Apple) vs 57% (Nokia) and 45% (RIMM). However, the actual net change between Nokia and iPhone, in terms of units sold is still remarkably in favor of Nokia by a wide margin.
http://images.appleinsider.com/idc-100507.png
Can the iPhone keep up with Nokia and RIMM? The iPhone may or may not keep up with the other phone makers. It is even possible that the total Android smartphones may surpass the iPhone, if it has not already done so.
The analogy here is the case of computers, where Apple primary goal is not to become the major computer manufacturer. Steve Jobs has already conceded this to the Wintel companies.
The main difference is in the profit margin where the Apple iPhone beats all the competition. The profit margin difference is the reason why the iPhone may be eclipsed by all the top five major phone makers; and yet, the net profit of Apple from the iPhone may still eclipse or not much lower than the combined profit of the other manufacturers. Another good example of this is the net profit of Apple in the Mac computers vs the combined computer component profit of the other computer manufacturers -- even if the latter combined constitute 80-90% of the total computers manufactured.
CGC
You raise excellent points.
But: "The profit margin difference is the reason why the iPhone may be eclipsed by all the top five major phone makers; and yet, the net profit of Apple from the iPhone may still eclipse or not much lower than the combined profit of the other manufacturers. "
This is great for Apple's owners. But it is not good for Apple's customers. Most people here are Apple customers.
Care to place any bets on this?
I think it's likely in that timeframe. And from everything I've seen, inevitable. It's a free, modern OS. that any vendor can use. We'll see it for smart-PMPs, smartphones, tablets and netbooks. There are just too many vendors out there for it to not be tops for OS marketshare... providing another (better) free solution doesn't crop up in the next two years and Apple doesn't license their OS (laugh).
You raise excellent points.
Yes he does. Percentages are only valid when quantified.
This is great for Apple's owners. But it is not good for Apple's customers. Most people here are Apple customers.
That's great for Apple customers, too. Without the iPhone being as desirable as it is there would have no viable market to draw customers in thereby pushing the rest of the industry to follow suit partly trying to out innovate but mostly follow in Apple's footsteps. Check out Android before the iPhone was announced as Exhibit A.
Sometimes, our desire to put Apple in a "better light" make us accept deceptive analysis, as if they are facts. And this data is a case in point.
LOTS OF GRADESCHOOL STATISTICS
Can the iPhone keep up with Nokia and RIMM?...
The main difference is in the profit margin where the Apple iPhone beats all the competition...
CGC
Why do you bother with all that stuff about basic unit share data (% vs. absolute growth, I ask you?) when you then correctly state lower down that it is pretty irrelevant to Apple and the realities of the market. Share of revenue and profit are much more valuable measures of market success. Since all we get are these pointless unit stats, you are right, people spend way too much time and effort on them.
What is important from these stats is that iPhone can grow at a very fast rate, on a very large number of sales, at a very high price, with still somewhat limited distribution (compared to RIM/Nokia/Sam). On those terms it blows everyone but RIM away (though they get about half the ASP/profit $s per phone that Apple does).
Nokia's unit share growth is irrelevant if it is cheap music phones with browsers (which it is) which don't even use any modern Symbian or Meego OS, don't use OVI services much etc. and so achieve no meaningful Nokia agenda items. N- & E-series phones are less than 50% of that unit sales figure. Nokias ASP for smartphones is about 25% of Apple's ($161 vs. $600) and relative profitability is probably worse than that. Apple already drives double the revenue and profit from smartphones that Nokia does.
Android is a different story since it is owned by Google who make nothing directly on it. Those sales are by Moto, HTC and Samsung etc. None of their models have remotely achieved the scale to compete with Apple (Moto=2.3M including all Droid, Cliq, Devour sales). Adding them up to create "Android OS market share" is a much more nebulous concept since the benefits are diverse and largely indirect. If it becomes commoditized then there will be a race to the bottom amongst handset makers (like Windows) and if it fragments (add-on UIs etc.) it loses the benefits of scale. Google doesn't care since it still makes ad $s on every version but the handset guys who compete with Apple will - either lower prices or more cost, both will reduce margins on various lower scale handsets.
Even today, I will lay you odds that the HTC EVO 4G makes HTC far less money than an equivalent iPhone makes Apple. They probably charge Sprint about the same or even a little lower, but have to pay for the larger screen, 4G radios, bigger battery etc. and they will sell far fewer (new phone, poor distribution, etc.) maybe 1M a quarter. Sprint have to pay an iPhone sized subsidy for less contract revenue (due to Sprint's lower rates) - everyone's a loser (except the customer - yay us!)
Can the iPhone keep up with Nokia and RIMM? The iPhone may or may not keep up with the other phone makers. It is even possible that the total Android smartphones may surpass the iPhone, if it has not already done so.
You make some great points about percentages shouldn't be a determination in and of themselves for success, but AI did present the unit sales, too. You can clearly see that both RiM and Nokia sold more units and that Nokia's unit increase dwarfed Apple's unit increase, but even that isn't a good scale to measure success as this include cost or profit, things actually important to companies, not the piddly stats used for marketing.
The analogy here is the case of computers, where Apple primary goal is not to become the major computer manufacturer. Steve Jobs has already conceded this to the Wintel companies.
This is a horrible comparison. Apple is a major PC maker and is a major handset maker. Not selling the most units doesn't negate the fact that they have the mindshare, have the most profit, and may also likely take in the most revenue in both their handset and PC areas.
The main difference is in the profit margin where the Apple iPhone beats all the competition.
A large part of their profit margin being higher than others is not because it's excessive, as other companies charge about the same (if not more) for a similarly categorized item, but because they choose not to compete in the areas with little to no profit margin. You take a top of the line Dell or HP and a larger percentage of that item will be profit, but you'll also get other things from the deal. For example, better service, better build quality and better engineering.
Also, some of the price hike may be to offset by their cheaper PCs (which we see all the time in up-selling), another part may be their lack of economy of scale (Apple's has done wonders on this front with a "boutique" lineup and now milled aluminum), and another may be because they don't sell as much crapware space on their flagship machines like they do for their $400 notebooks.
As I recall, Acer recently squeezed past Apple in unit sales due to netbooks. I'd say Acer wishes they could change places with Apple.
You raise excellent points.
But: "The profit margin difference is the reason why the iPhone may be eclipsed by all the top five major phone makers; and yet, the net profit of Apple from the iPhone may still eclipse or not much lower than the combined profit of the other manufacturers. "
This is great for Apple's owners. But it is not good for Apple's customers. Most people here are Apple customers.
Unit sales and market share are of no relevance to Apple customers either, and this is what this posting is about. We here are (mostly) Apple fans so are interested in the implications of these statistics for Apple as a company. As customers there are other posts where we get to complain about functionality or AT&Ts lousy service or moon over what might be in the HD/4. Apple making industry leading profits while selling their phones at industry-matching prices ($99, $199, $299) is a great tradeoff for customers. You think that the on- or off-contract price of an Evo 4G or Incredible is less than that of an iPhone (3GS or 4/HD)? The customer is not getting hurt in this (mostly the carriers suck it up) and Apple does not owe you or anyone but their shareholders any of their smartly-earned cash. As long as you are not being gouged unfairly for an iPhone, why complain about Apple's success?
As I recall, Acer recently squeezed past Apple in unit sales due to netbooks. I'd say Acer wishes they could change places with Apple.[INDENT
The real metric is return on capital. That can be maximized in many different ways.
Unit sales and market share are of no relevance to Apple customers either
Of course they are. With a smaller unit sales/market share, there is a smaller ecosystem. With popular products, lots of software and accessories are available.
In addition to the ecosystem, high unit sales implies wide availability, which usually leads to discounting.
High market share or unit sales of a product are good for the product's consumers.
Nokia's unit share growth is irrelevant if it is cheap music phones with browsers (which it is) which don't even use any modern Symbian or Meego OS, don't use OVI services much etc. and so achieve no meaningful Nokia agenda items. N- & E-series phones are less than 50% of that unit sales figure. Nokias ASP for smartphones is about 25% of Apple's ($161 vs. $600) and relative profitability is probably worse than that. Apple already drives double the revenue and profit from smartphones that Nokia does.
These charts are for smartphones, so why would you even mention Series 40 phones from Nokia, the phones listed in the Nokia smartphone figure will be Symbian and Maemo, they use OVI series etc. Maybe you should go back and actually look at the products before you show your lack of knowledge.
And talking about ASP and profits shows you have no argument as from the consumers point of view they want value for money, not the most profitable for the manufacturer.
Can someone explain why is it that Nokia still holds such a large market share overseas? Every single review of their phones for the past two years has been poor. Out of all the smartphone OSs, I'd choose Symbian last. Am I missing something here?
Because in some countries, Nokia enjoys the kind of rock star status than Apple enjoys in the US. Customers are loyal. Customers get used to a certain way of doing things, no matter how unintuitive it may seem to new users.
And remember that virtually all the reviews you read are written from an American perspective. It's the equivalent of only reading American articles on soccer. You'd think it was the least important and least popular sport in the world if you did so.
Of course they are. With a smaller unit sales/market share, there is a smaller ecosystem. With popular products, lots of software and accessories are available.
In addition to the ecosystem, high unit sales implies wide availability, which usually leads to discounting.
High market share or unit sales of a product are good for the product's consumers.
All your points are potentially valid but absolutely are not directly driven by high market share.
Apple has the strongest ecosystem by far without the highest sales. The profitability of the average Apple customer (what they spend on apps/content etc.) are more direct drivers of the strength of an ecosystem. High sales and share may help if they are the right kind of customers, or may hinder by commoditizing the ecosystem.
NOKs ecosystem should be massive and powerful but it is weak and anemic. Scale is by no means everything.
What is particularly impressive about Apple is that they don't discount, don't BOGOF and still sell so many. Selling more by these methods doesn't make sense for Apple as a business.
Does MS/Windows' crushing high market share help customers - did it make Win upgrades cheaper (no - very expensive until the Vista debacle), did it make Office cheaper (obviously no). Your points are largely theoretical and not particularly valid in these cases.
These charts are for smartphones, so why would you even mention Series 40 phones from Nokia, the phones listed in the Nokia smartphone figure will be Symbian and Maemo, they use OVI series etc. Maybe you should go back and actually look at the products before you show your lack of knowledge.
And talking about ASP and profits shows you have no argument as from the consumers point of view they want value for money, not the most profitable for the manufacturer.
There are weak S60 phones too with dinky little screens but they still run "Symbian". Not competitive to any real smartphone but counted in the numbers. If you only count N& E series, apparently you halve Nokia's smartphone numbers. I support Nokia's democratic desire to ship cheap-ass symbian phones to the eager masses. Good for them, but it ain't great business and shouldn't be used to pretend it makes them competitive to more focused smartphone makers.
I said that the customer can look after themselves. You think iPhone is a rip, don't buy it. This thread was about sales and share - an industry discussion, not a consumer interest piece. I realize NOK is indefensible as a business so you keep going on about consumers. They continue to make their choices without your help.
You raise excellent points.
but: "the profit margin difference is the reason why the iphone may be eclipsed by all the top five major phone makers; and yet, the net profit of apple from the iphone may still eclipse or not much lower than the combined profit of the other manufacturers. "
I should modify my main point, to make it more clear:
The main difference is in the profit margin where the apple iphone beats all the competition. Thus, it is possible that the total unit sales of Apple may be eclipsed by all the top five major phone makers combined. however, the profit margin difference of the iPhone will still provite a net profit (net income) that still eclipse or may not be much lower than the combined profit of the other manufacturers.
this is great for apple's owners. but it is not good for apple's customers. most people here are apple customers.
What you raised is sometimes referred to by those who do not like Apple as "Apple tax".
I had a detailed response to your question, based from personal experience but it got so long. To summarize, if other Mac users were like myself, many decided to use Mac and other Apple products -- in spite of the higher cost -- for a numbers of reasons:
- Ease of use and intuitive use: I was able to use my first Apple computer without reading any instruction manual.
- Durability: My first Apple Classic lasted for almost 7 years. The green bondi iMac I bought in 1998 or 1999 (not sure now) is still working. My iBook bought in late 2003 remains my main laptop. Of course, they are much slower now compared to newer Apple products. In contrast, in a number of institutions I was connected with, PC computers while "cheaper" also had to be replaced more often.\t
- It just works: They seldom brokedown. I did not encounter any virus. I had problem with my iBook. I had issues with my iBook when it was new but it turned out, it might have been the extra RAM chip I added using a third party RAM chip. After that, the problem encountered vanished. If my computer froze, usually, it was because I had so many applications opens, sometimes each with multiple windows. Just restart and it worked again. In contrast, in a number of institutions I was connected with, PC computers especially those used by the secretaries and non-tech personnel broke down more often or were on occasion infected with virus.
- Support and Apple Store: Before the Apple Store existed, I could rely on Apple technical support to diagnose the problem for me over the phone, sometimes I talked to them for hours. They provided support, even if it was third party accessories caused the problems. Usually, it was a third accesory that caused the problem. Now, when I am close to an Apple Store, I just visit the store to ask support questions. The staff were always very helpful. In fact, even if it is a third party accessory or sometimes not even directly related to Apple products, the Apple Store staff would try their best to help. The Apple Store also allow you to try their products before you buy.
- One-on-One support and training: For Apple users who need more handholding or tutorial, the $99 dollar a year one-on-one is a very big incentive for many older people or non-techies. The Apple Store also have regular seminars, for free, for many of their softwares and for their products.
- Other resources and services: Apart from the many offerings of the Apple Store (if you are near one), how many companies offer resources and services, like the Apple Apps, iTunes, iBooks, Mobile Me, etc.? The tens of thousands of free Apps, eBooks, not provided by other manufacturers may have intangible values that exceed the cost of the Apple product.
- The Apple Ecosystem: A number of developers and quite a number of individuals are not too enthusiastic with the vertically integrated ecosystem that supports Apple products. To many of the average, non-techie Apple consumers find this "walled garden" of the Apple ecosystem to be a welcome feature
.In effect, therefore, while the initial cost of an Apple product may be more than the comparable Wintel PC, the total operational costs of owning a PC would likely be higher. There are also other premium benefits offered through Apple Services ("e.g., one-on-one support and training) and the Apple Ecosystem not usually offered or possible by many other manufacturers.
CGC
There are weak S60 phones too with dinky little screens but they still run "Symbian". Not competitive to any real smartphone but counted in the numbers. If you only count N& E series, apparently you halve Nokia's smartphone numbers. I support Nokia's democratic desire to ship cheap-ass symbian phones to the eager masses. Good for them, but it ain't great business and shouldn't be used to pretend it makes them competitive to more focused smartphone makers.
Can you please list all the S60 phones that you don't think shouldn't be classed as smartphones and the reason for each one as to why you think that way?
[*] Ease of use and intuitive use: I was able to use my first Apple computer without reading any instruction manual.
I was able to use my first PC without reading any instruction manual either, not sure of your point there, and I had to get that PC as I could justify spending the extra 25% for a Mac that was slower, and a mono screen.
[*] Durability: My first Apple Classic lasted for almost 7 years. The green bondi iMac I bought in 1998 or 1999 (not sure now) is still working. My iBook bought in late 2003 remains my main laptop. Of course, they are much slower now compared to newer Apple products. In contrast, in a number of institutions I was connected with, PC computers while "cheaper" also had to be replaced more often.\t
A PC will last just as long, I just had one I purchased in 99 retired, it was still working fine, just a little slow. And if the Mac cost you 25% more, you would expect it to last 25% longer
[*] It just works: They seldom brokedown. I did not encounter any virus. I had problem with my iBook. I had issues with my iBook when it was new but it turned out, it might have been the extra RAM chip I added using a third party RAM chip. After that, the problem encountered vanished. If my computer froze, usually, it was because I had so many applications opens, sometimes each with multiple windows. Just restart and it worked again. In contrast, in a number of institutions I was connected with, PC computers especially those used by the secretaries and non-tech personnel broke down more often or were on occasion infected with virus.
That may be your experience, but none of my PCs have broken down anymore times than any of my Macs, they have all worked fine.
[*] Support and Apple Store: Before the Apple Store existed, I could rely on Apple technical support to diagnose the problem for me over the phone, sometimes I talked to them for hours.
Lucky you have an Apple store, most of the world doesn't have access to them, so you are stuck dealing with Apple remotely, and in some cases they trade from another country.
[*] One-on-One support and training: For Apple users who need more handholding or tutorial, the $99 dollar a year one-on-one is a very big incentive for many older people or non-techies. The Apple Store also have regular seminars, for free, for many of their softwares and for their products.
if you are lucky enough to live near an Apple store I suppose that could be handy, but also, let's remember your first point, you know the one about not needing an instruction manual?
In effect, therefore, while the initial cost of an Apple product may be more than the comparable Wintel PC, the total operational costs of owning a PC would likely be higher. There are also other premium benefits offered through Apple Services ("e.g., one-on-one support and training) and the Apple Exosystem not usually offered or possible by many other manufacturers.
CGC
I'm note sure what you mean, I don't do anymore support on my PCs than my Macs, they don't cost me any extra in running costs than my Macs.
You purchase something because you want them, you purchase them because they provide a cost benefit to yourself, you don't have to justify your purchase of a computer, or phone regardless of brand to anyone
I'm note sure what you mean, I don't do anymore support on my PCs than my Macs, they don't cost me any extra in running costs than my Macs.
You're not sure what he means because you're only looking at PC vs. Mac cost of ownership from your own perspective, as a tech savvy geek. You're ignoring the layman's perspective.
The vast majority of people are not tech savvy geeks who can configure their own PC, fix it when something goes wrong and install free AV software, run it correctly and keep their system free from spyware. Most people DO pay for AV software. Most people DO pay for tech support.
Then there are the people who CAN maintain their own machines, but their time is too valuable to spend doing it, so they'd rather have something that just works.
For all of those people, it is cheaper to own a Mac. Period.
Can you please list all the S60 phones that you don't think shouldn't be classed as smartphones and the reason for each one as to why you think that way?
I'd take this one step further.
What on Earth makes the distinction that a phone is a "Smartphone"?
Let's compare a typical "dumbphone" to a "smartphone".
A smartphone can run third-party apps.
A dumbphone can too (J2ME, Symbian, etc.)
A smartphone can browse the internet.
A dumbphone can too (Opera Mini, etc.).
A smartphone has organizer funtions.
So does a dumbphone.
Please, someone tell me, what the hell is the difference?
Isn't it time we retire the "smartphone" name and just call a phone a phone?
For starters, I really don't prefer touchscreen over QWERTY keyboards. I never could, and probably never will, be able to get used to that.
I have a Blackberry Bold 9700 now, and it is faster than my iPhone was. I love it, and love the service.
But that's not to say I don't love Apple. I am actually going to be getting my Macbook Pro this coming month. I absolutely love these units, and Blackberry Desktop Manager runs way faster on them than in a Windows environment.
Maybe because I'm not a fanboy and don't feel a need to defend RIM or Apple, I can have it both ways. I wouldn't give my Bold up anytime soon because it does everything I need a phone to do. Blackberry still beats iPhone in the messaging department, and with Blackberry Enterprise Server, it smokes in Enterprise.
If Apple could ever make a phone with a keyboard as great as the ones they use on their computers, I'd definitely give it a second thought. I loved the multimedia and some of the apps for the iPhone, but honestly I have yet to find an app on their that is close to Social Scope or Personal Assistant in terms of how much I actually use them.
RIM isn't a bad company and the construction of the Bold 9700 is top-notch. I'm very happy with it, and will be super happy with the MBP.
I might also get an iPad. I really like that a lot more than the iPhone or iPod Touch.
Lots of Blackberry users were kind of snooty because their Fortune 500 company gave them the device. Now they are feeling left out of the latest technology.
I don't feel left out. I bought mine, and the 9700 Bold is a badass unit. It takes amazing video and pics, and it pounds anything out there for messaging. Since messaging is primarily what I needed a phone for, the Bold 9700 beat the iPhone hands down.
Plus, don't forget AT&T isn't a great company. I detest Apple's relationship with them.
My Bold hooked up to a Macbook Pro will tether a lot better than the iPhone will.
You're not sure what he means because you're only looking at PC vs. Mac cost of ownership from your own perspective, as a tech savvy geek. You're ignoring the layman's perspective.
So it is ok for him to post based on his own perspective, but not someone else, ok.
The vast majority of people are not tech savvy geeks who can configure their own PC, fix it when something goes wrong and install free AV software, run it correctly and keep their system free from spyware. Most people DO pay for AV software. Most people DO pay for tech support.
Yes, and they do for Macs as well, if they have an issue with their Mac they will also have to go to someone to help them.
Then there are the people who CAN maintain their own machines, but their time is too valuable to spend doing it, so they'd rather have something that just works.
Considering the prices I saw at a local Mac serive agent when I had to take my Mac in repair, their time must be real valuable, tech support places are very expensive.
For all of those people, it is cheaper to own a Mac. Period.
I still don't see your logic, Macs have issues, they are not as foolproof as people make them out to be, so according to you, these people will have to pay to get their Mac supported, probably more so due to the limited number of places supporting them, so where does the cost saving come in?
I still don't see your logic, Macs have issues, they are not as foolproof as people make them out to be, so according to you, these people will have to pay to get their Mac supported, probably more so due to the limited number of places supporting them, so where does the cost saving come in?
Macs have issues FAR less frequently than PCs do (for the layman). It's not an Apple to Apple comparison. And Macs do have warranty coverage. PCs commonly have issues, like malware, that warranties don't cover. Someone has to pay for that.
Not to mention you've totally ignored the AV software point.
Yes, you can get free AV software for the PC. But does the layman know that, and can they install, configure it, and keep it up to date themselves? The fact is that the majority of the non-geeks pay for whatever anti-virus program comes pre-installed.