But it is equally true for many businesses that unless the goal of achieving the business' 'secondary goal' (I have phrased this to make you happy) which in Apple's case would be to create the the best computing experience on the planet, the 'profit motive' just wouldn't be enough to make it worth while bothering.
They tried that when Steve was in the wilderness. Apple released many models to fill store shelves so there would be more display space to compete with the PCs. Steve nixed that when he came back.
Well, I for one don't care about anyone's projections. Just because they graphed a trend doesn't mean anything. All of this is just speculative data for investors to base their decisions, but most of it will end up being wrong. The first person in the thread already pegged the relevance of this article.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron
Well, I for one care a bit more about Gartner's projections than your projections.
Got anything behind your analysis that beats the data Gartner relied upon?
The goal of any business is profit at the risk of a loss-- called the profit motive.
Everything else is secondary!
I would have to disagree with this. A business has to make a profit (or continually attract fresh investment capital) to stay in business, but that doesn't have to be its, or its owners/top executives, primary motivation. For example, many people start businesses to "be their own boss". Sure, they have to figure out a way to make some money so they can do that, but it's not necessarily their primary motivation. People start businesses because they are really in to something and want to be able to pursue it full time. Again, yes, they have to make some money, but pursuing their interest is their primary motivation. (Sometimes, people even accept huge reductions in their income to do this.)
There are all sorts of motivations for people running businesses. They may have shareholders to keep happy along the way, but that doesn't have to be their primary motivation. Power, empire building, avoiding the rat race and, sure, desire for money are some among many possible motivations, so why not to change the world?
Apple is projected to sell 130 million iOS-based mobile devices per year by 2014, but both Google Android and Nokia Symbian are expected to each double that amount, according to Gartner.
This is such bullshit. The only way you can make prediction about sales of devices is to know what devices will be selling.
Can anyone actually guess how many iOS devices will be on the Market in 2014?
BTW, the iPhone sells at 4 million a month now, the iPad is a 2 and the iPod touch at 3. That 103 million units per year right now.
So - shipping rates per year so far:
2007 - >10 million (iPhone + iPod touch)
2008 - >20 million (iPhone 3G+ iPod touch)
2009 - >40 million (iPhone 3G+iPhone 3GS +iPod touch)
This "analysis" is already worthless because it doesn't account for Windows Phone 7 at all. Windows Phone 7 is the first viable direct competition Android is getting. RIM, Apple, and Nokia are all competing with the "HW/SW single vendor" model. Windows Mobile 6 does use the Android model (SW vendor different from HW vendor) but it was never a touch OS, unlike WP7.
I am confident you will see at least some deflection on the part of the HW makers from Android to WP7.
They do account for WP7 but the prediction is based on absolutely zero information and appears to simply assume a continued downward trendline. Which is completely idiotic unless they truly believe MS doesn't have the resources or will simply roll over.
The key is that MS isn't fighting Google on its home turf (search) but in an arena where it is well equipped to fight: operating systems, developer support and specifically gaming development support. You're going to see a ton of indie games for WP7 because of XNA support. There are detailed blogs on game development for WP7 already.
This presentation at Mix is very good as a high level intro to WP7 game coding.
They really need more than one phone on the market right now. Frankly for the same reasons that they have more than one iPod. That is to serve different needs.
They are slowly moving in that direction. In reality the Touch is now more or less a WiFi based VoIP phone. Obviously somewhat limited because it is Facetime only with Apple supported hardware/software. But still it is a device serving a different need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkhm
What is with the market share obsession? Apple don't care about market share, they care about brand awareness and profitability.
This is BS. It is very clear that Apple thinks about market share, but not without profitability. Brand awareness is something you create to get the other two. Market share means a lot to Apple as it helps a great deal when it comes to competitive even aggressive pricing on Apples part. In fact it has helped so much that many of the Macs have remained reasonably priced over the last couple of years. Not I said reasonably priced not bargain basement. Market share has helped with software costs too. Mac OS/X updates have gotten cheaper for one. Market share has also given them confidence to be very aggressive in pricing iPad software, for example look at Numbers or Pages for iPad.
Quote:
I find it incredible that a company which produce only one phone a year can have even this much market share - when you count the number of devices out there that run Android compared to the one device that is iPhone, then iOS shouldn't even register as a percentage.
Have you even looked seriously at the mess that is Android?
Quote:
I don't think Apple have too much worry about.
Nope not at the moment. However they need to get the ball in gear or the car rolling with products that more fully take advantage of their initiatives. In some ways they are slippin up here. IPad should have been rev'd already to support Facetime. Beyound that the new AppleTV is a big joke. Why they did not integrate FaceTime there is beyound me. AppleTV looks like a product built to meet a price point and not a vision.
So maybe they don't have to worry at the moment but they need to continually adjust stadegey. More products would help a great deal.
But it is equally true for many businesses that unless the goal of achieving the business' 'secondary goal' (I have phrased this to make you happy) which in Apple's case would be to create the the best computing experience on the planet, the 'profit motive' just wouldn't be enough to make it worth while bothering.
For many businesses?
Name 5 businesses for which the profit motive just wouldn't be enough to make it worth while bothering.
And no, I'm not talking about a rich housewife's hobby boutique where she loses money every month. Real businesses. With real investors. Investors who want to make money.
<But when you have a CEO with an ego as big as the North American continent you just don't do that.>
for those old enough to remember this analogy.
ted williams had an ego large enough to exceed the size of north america and he still managed to be one of the all time best ball players, ever! and that goes for practically every successful business person. they have egos that just wont quit.
...And the fans cheered when he spit at them
If it were't for two wars, he would have been the greatest baseball player of all time-- instead of: maybe the greatest baseball player of all time.
<But when you have a CEO with an ego as big as the North American continent you just don't do that.>
for those old enough to remember this analogy.
ted williams had an ego large enough to exceed the size of north america and he still managed to be one of the all time best ball players, ever! and that goes for practically every successful business person. they have egos that just wont quit.
is not the size of a certain CEO's ego, it's the simple fact that it threatens the over-inflated ego of a certain spelunker in these posts who wants any ego close in size to his taken out and shot. To the average person, but most especially to the mildly sociopathic geek or blog contributor, who tend to spend more time in front of a screen than in front of a Board of Directors, or a collection of development team leads, the ability to turn a business vision into a compelling business success is very threatening and must be viewed negatively in order to feel good about themselves. Simple really - the biggest ego-detractors (and usually the one who also dive for the fanboi epithet the quickest) are the least secure, least likely to be running multi-billion dollar businesses and loudest in decrying anyone who does.
This is interesting, and points to something that was obscured in this AppleInsider article: Was Gartner talking about "iOS devices" or smart phones? The article about this on Ars seems to say smart phones, which would make these numbers make some sense. The article here says iOS devices, which would include a whole bunch of stuff that runs iOS but doesn't make a phone call. I haven't seen the study, but most "analysts" compare smart phones to smart phones when talking numbers.
iOS based iPod Nano is good indication they are headed in that direction. They have to get people used to the idea first that iOS isn't just a full fledged iPhone thing, that the software isn't really the dictator of device features. Once people get used to seeing iOS on just about every Apple device then they will stop trying to imagine Apple TVs that operate like iPhones connected to a TV, or iPods that always come with built in video capabilities just because they have a touch screen.
If Apple releases a lower-end phone it would most likely be something like an iPod Nano with phone capabilities. Something where the phone isn't expected to be either smart nor feature rich. Something where it does a few tasks, really well, and for a low price.
A phone the size of an iPod Nano... Interesting idea! Clipped to your shirt!
If Apple could pull that off, what would be the other device that people would carry with them?
Trying to predict a market that moves this fast any more that a few months out is pointless...
I'll make my own guesses and we will see how they pan out...
1) RIM is preferred on the corporate level and this will support their current market share. I do not see this changing in the next few years....
2) iOS is growing strong and is very profitable. I do not see this changing in the next few years.
3) Android is growing strong and is making a lot of money for several companies. I do not see this changing in the next few years
4) Releasing the iPhone on Verizon/Sprint/T Mobile would cut into Android sales about 20%... ( Just a guess )
5) I think Win Mobile 7 is going to be too little too late... ( It is a opinion and I fully admit I could be wrong )
6) Google's Chrome OS is dying and will likely be killed off by it's own creation.... Android... Kind of strange when you think about it...
7) Fragmentation is not going to doom Android...Google does have a tendency to send stuff out half baked, but they are also a code generating machine and can fix rather severe flaws rather quickly. Early adopters do get screwed sometimes by Google...
8) All of the ranting on these tech boards do not alter the sales of any products by any measurable amount....
I'm sorry but as someone who knows about Gartner since the late 90's, I would say they they've never been right about anything they've projected. Very rarely do they get it right. When they started they had kids right out of school who don't know their elbows from a hole in the ground make up projections.
So, I would bet with almost 100% certainty come 2014, these numbers will be way off....
No... they were on the money with at least 1 number... 2014
But it is equally true for many businesses that unless the goal of achieving the business' 'secondary goal' (I have phrased this to make you happy) which in Apple's case would be to create the the best computing experience on the planet, the 'profit motive' just wouldn't be enough to make it worth while bothering.
I agree (except you are rephrasing to make the investors happy)!
I was CEO/COO of a small corporation! Our corporate objectives:
1) return a fair profit to our investors
2) provide the best possible products and services to our customers
Comments
The goal of any business is profit at the risk of a loss-- called the profit motive.
Everything else is secondary!
You can Yahoo or Bing the phrase for defiinitions-- here's one:
http://www.investorglossary.com/profit-motive.htm.
But it is equally true for many businesses that unless the goal of achieving the business' 'secondary goal' (I have phrased this to make you happy) which in Apple's case would be to create the the best computing experience on the planet, the 'profit motive' just wouldn't be enough to make it worth while bothering.
Well, I for one care a bit more about Gartner's projections than your projections.
Got anything behind your analysis that beats the data Gartner relied upon?
The goal of any business is profit at the risk of a loss-- called the profit motive.
Everything else is secondary!
I would have to disagree with this. A business has to make a profit (or continually attract fresh investment capital) to stay in business, but that doesn't have to be its, or its owners/top executives, primary motivation. For example, many people start businesses to "be their own boss". Sure, they have to figure out a way to make some money so they can do that, but it's not necessarily their primary motivation. People start businesses because they are really in to something and want to be able to pursue it full time. Again, yes, they have to make some money, but pursuing their interest is their primary motivation. (Sometimes, people even accept huge reductions in their income to do this.)
There are all sorts of motivations for people running businesses. They may have shareholders to keep happy along the way, but that doesn't have to be their primary motivation. Power, empire building, avoiding the rat race and, sure, desire for money are some among many possible motivations, so why not to change the world?
Apple is projected to sell 130 million iOS-based mobile devices per year by 2014, but both Google Android and Nokia Symbian are expected to each double that amount, according to Gartner.
This is such bullshit. The only way you can make prediction about sales of devices is to know what devices will be selling.
Can anyone actually guess how many iOS devices will be on the Market in 2014?
BTW, the iPhone sells at 4 million a month now, the iPad is a 2 and the iPod touch at 3. That 103 million units per year right now.
So - shipping rates per year so far:
2007 - >10 million (iPhone + iPod touch)
2008 - >20 million (iPhone 3G+ iPod touch)
2009 - >40 million (iPhone 3G+iPhone 3GS +iPod touch)
2010 - >100 million (iPhone 3GS + iPhone 4 + iPod touch + iPad)
2011 - ?
2012 - ?
2013 - ?
2014 - =130 million WTF Gartner
If you just analize what is happening now and multiply a little for the coming years, you can just place numbers.
I could give it a try and guess to.
Android 30%
iOS 20%
Google Chrome 15%
(HP/Sony) WebOS 10%
Nokia w/Win7 5%
Nokia w/others 5%
Others 15%
That's just the rest of the world.
China will close there doors, and make their own.
PRC/OS 60%
That was easy. (Next thing you know Octopus will be guessing soccer matches)
This "analysis" is already worthless because it doesn't account for Windows Phone 7 at all. Windows Phone 7 is the first viable direct competition Android is getting. RIM, Apple, and Nokia are all competing with the "HW/SW single vendor" model. Windows Mobile 6 does use the Android model (SW vendor different from HW vendor) but it was never a touch OS, unlike WP7.
I am confident you will see at least some deflection on the part of the HW makers from Android to WP7.
They do account for WP7 but the prediction is based on absolutely zero information and appears to simply assume a continued downward trendline. Which is completely idiotic unless they truly believe MS doesn't have the resources or will simply roll over.
The key is that MS isn't fighting Google on its home turf (search) but in an arena where it is well equipped to fight: operating systems, developer support and specifically gaming development support. You're going to see a ton of indie games for WP7 because of XNA support. There are detailed blogs on game development for WP7 already.
This presentation at Mix is very good as a high level intro to WP7 game coding.
http://live.visitmix.com/MIX10/Sessions/CL22
They are slowly moving in that direction. In reality the Touch is now more or less a WiFi based VoIP phone. Obviously somewhat limited because it is Facetime only with Apple supported hardware/software. But still it is a device serving a different need.
What is with the market share obsession? Apple don't care about market share, they care about brand awareness and profitability.
This is BS. It is very clear that Apple thinks about market share, but not without profitability. Brand awareness is something you create to get the other two. Market share means a lot to Apple as it helps a great deal when it comes to competitive even aggressive pricing on Apples part. In fact it has helped so much that many of the Macs have remained reasonably priced over the last couple of years. Not I said reasonably priced not bargain basement. Market share has helped with software costs too. Mac OS/X updates have gotten cheaper for one. Market share has also given them confidence to be very aggressive in pricing iPad software, for example look at Numbers or Pages for iPad.
I find it incredible that a company which produce only one phone a year can have even this much market share - when you count the number of devices out there that run Android compared to the one device that is iPhone, then iOS shouldn't even register as a percentage.
Have you even looked seriously at the mess that is Android?
I don't think Apple have too much worry about.
Nope not at the moment. However they need to get the ball in gear or the car rolling with products that more fully take advantage of their initiatives. In some ways they are slippin up here. IPad should have been rev'd already to support Facetime. Beyound that the new AppleTV is a big joke. Why they did not integrate FaceTime there is beyound me. AppleTV looks like a product built to meet a price point and not a vision.
So maybe they don't have to worry at the moment but they need to continually adjust stadegey. More products would help a great deal.
If the stock holders in Apple really wanted to maximise their profits they would demand a dividend. Otherwise their profit is worthless.
How do you figure that?
But it is equally true for many businesses that unless the goal of achieving the business' 'secondary goal' (I have phrased this to make you happy) which in Apple's case would be to create the the best computing experience on the planet, the 'profit motive' just wouldn't be enough to make it worth while bothering.
For many businesses?
Name 5 businesses for which the profit motive just wouldn't be enough to make it worth while bothering.
And no, I'm not talking about a rich housewife's hobby boutique where she loses money every month. Real businesses. With real investors. Investors who want to make money.
Name 5 please. There are many, right?
<But when you have a CEO with an ego as big as the North American continent you just don't do that.>
for those old enough to remember this analogy.
ted williams had an ego large enough to exceed the size of north america and he still managed to be one of the all time best ball players, ever! and that goes for practically every successful business person. they have egos that just wont quit.
...And the fans cheered when he spit at them
If it were't for two wars, he would have been the greatest baseball player of all time-- instead of: maybe the greatest baseball player of all time.
.
You have to wonder if this Analysts take into consideration how things can change thru the years.
Naw. They probably didn't think of that.
<But when you have a CEO with an ego as big as the North American continent you just don't do that.>
for those old enough to remember this analogy.
ted williams had an ego large enough to exceed the size of north america and he still managed to be one of the all time best ball players, ever! and that goes for practically every successful business person. they have egos that just wont quit.
is not the size of a certain CEO's ego, it's the simple fact that it threatens the over-inflated ego of a certain spelunker in these posts who wants any ego close in size to his taken out and shot. To the average person, but most especially to the mildly sociopathic geek or blog contributor, who tend to spend more time in front of a screen than in front of a Board of Directors, or a collection of development team leads, the ability to turn a business vision into a compelling business success is very threatening and must be viewed negatively in order to feel good about themselves. Simple really - the biggest ego-detractors (and usually the one who also dive for the fanboi epithet the quickest) are the least secure, least likely to be running multi-billion dollar businesses and loudest in decrying anyone who does.
This is such bullshit. The only way you can make prediction about sales of devices is to know what devices will be selling.
Can anyone actually guess how many iOS devices will be on the Market in 2014?
BTW, the iPhone sells at 4 million a month now, the iPad is a 2 and the iPod touch at 3. That 103 million units per year right now.
So - shipping rates per year so far:
2007 - >10 million (iPhone + iPod touch)
2008 - >20 million (iPhone 3G+ iPod touch)
2009 - >40 million (iPhone 3G+iPhone 3GS +iPod touch)
2010 - >100 million (iPhone 3GS + iPhone 4 + iPod touch + iPad)
2011 - ?
2012 - ?
2013 - ?
2014 - =130 million WTF Gartner
This is interesting, and points to something that was obscured in this AppleInsider article: Was Gartner talking about "iOS devices" or smart phones? The article about this on Ars seems to say smart phones, which would make these numbers make some sense. The article here says iOS devices, which would include a whole bunch of stuff that runs iOS but doesn't make a phone call. I haven't seen the study, but most "analysts" compare smart phones to smart phones when talking numbers.
iOS based iPod Nano is good indication they are headed in that direction. They have to get people used to the idea first that iOS isn't just a full fledged iPhone thing, that the software isn't really the dictator of device features. Once people get used to seeing iOS on just about every Apple device then they will stop trying to imagine Apple TVs that operate like iPhones connected to a TV, or iPods that always come with built in video capabilities just because they have a touch screen.
If Apple releases a lower-end phone it would most likely be something like an iPod Nano with phone capabilities. Something where the phone isn't expected to be either smart nor feature rich. Something where it does a few tasks, really well, and for a low price.
A phone the size of an iPod Nano... Interesting idea! Clipped to your shirt!
If Apple could pull that off, what would be the other device that people would carry with them?
.
I'll make my own guesses and we will see how they pan out...
1) RIM is preferred on the corporate level and this will support their current market share. I do not see this changing in the next few years....
2) iOS is growing strong and is very profitable. I do not see this changing in the next few years.
3) Android is growing strong and is making a lot of money for several companies. I do not see this changing in the next few years
4) Releasing the iPhone on Verizon/Sprint/T Mobile would cut into Android sales about 20%... ( Just a guess )
5) I think Win Mobile 7 is going to be too little too late... ( It is a opinion and I fully admit I could be wrong )
6) Google's Chrome OS is dying and will likely be killed off by it's own creation.... Android... Kind of strange when you think about it...
7) Fragmentation is not going to doom Android...Google does have a tendency to send stuff out half baked, but they are also a code generating machine and can fix rather severe flaws rather quickly. Early adopters do get screwed sometimes by Google...
8) All of the ranting on these tech boards do not alter the sales of any products by any measurable amount....
I'm sorry but as someone who knows about Gartner since the late 90's, I would say they they've never been right about anything they've projected. Very rarely do they get it right. When they started they had kids right out of school who don't know their elbows from a hole in the ground make up projections.
So, I would bet with almost 100% certainty come 2014, these numbers will be way off....
No... they were on the money with at least 1 number... 2014
.
But it is equally true for many businesses that unless the goal of achieving the business' 'secondary goal' (I have phrased this to make you happy) which in Apple's case would be to create the the best computing experience on the planet, the 'profit motive' just wouldn't be enough to make it worth while bothering.
I agree (except you are rephrasing to make the investors happy)!
I was CEO/COO of a small corporation! Our corporate objectives:
1) return a fair profit to our investors
2) provide the best possible products and services to our customers
3) have fun
.