If Apple does not want the iPhone to get reduced to Mac like market share numbers, they really really need to move to other carriers. Now, its possible they may be okay with that (after all, Apple makes more out of macs in terms of profit than any other PC maker does).
However, I don't think so. Steve Jobs said that the biggest mistake Apple made in its early years was not go for market share when they needed to. I don't think he is going to repeat that mistake. The moment the ATT exclusivity contract runs out (likely within the year), expect the iPhone to be on TMobile at the very least.
I think its likely they will also hit up Sprint, but Verizon might be doubtful. That still gives Apple access to about 55-60% of mobile customers in the US, so hopefully the number should increase.
Not the issue.
Over here in UK, the picture is pretty similar and iPhone is on all networks.
problem for Apple is their greed and the total cost of ownership compared to a similar Android phone is far higher.
Same Carrier, same tariff, same data allowance.
Galaxy S = 24mths x £20 & free phone = TCO £480
iPhone 4 = 24mths x £30 plus £99 for phone = TCO £819
the S is arguably a better piece of hardware, certainly a better phone so why would people pay 70 or 80% for the inferior product?
You probably know Google gives Android away for free. You might think Android development still costs Google money. Well, CEO Eric Schmidt tells Newsweek's Dan Lyons that Android phones already generate enough new ad revenue to cover Google's costs.
Haha I agree. Too many ex PC users for my liking on the platform already (and on this forum). I wouldn't mind, but their media puppet sheep-like visionless mentality irritates me to no end.
Yeah, yeah, cue the psychological projection...
This is said of the mac communities more and more, but I think it's because the number of switchers have increased rapidly in the last couple of years. As you know, humans are always enthused with learning new things. It will pass....
Why is this kept getting reported? There has been countless reports already since April that Android devices are outselling the iPhone.
It's sounds as if google is paying for these researches so that they send a message to the development community that the fastest growing market is Andriod. Microsoft When comes into picture will eat andriods lunch as it will be the same vendors which are aligning with Google.
It matters because Google now has a larger user base to sell apps to, to serve ads to, and eventually, to sell media to.
If Google surpasses Apple by enough on this point, Android will become the primary platform that mobile developers are catering to, and iOS will fall behind.
...the developers are making decent revenue on the platform. And that enough users are driving ad revenue for both developers and Google. Does it matter that Android is the primary platform? Probably not for the foreseeable future.
And it irritates me that reports continually conflat sales and installed base and growth numbers as if they were all equally valid. And no one calls them on it. Enough! Use the numbers correctly and stop being such tools. Apple drives profitability with whatever marketshare it deems as most profitable - in the case of the iPods, it's a majority share. In the case of the Mac platform - it's a 2-8% or so depending whose numbers you look at and which markets. But they still in each case own the highest profitability for the segment or market.
And let's not forget Microsoft. They fired the first shot across the Android bow with licensing for HTC. Motorola got the second. Microsoft will make sure that not only will they get their piece of the Android action, but that Android will longer be "free" to the carriers. Each install of Android will carry a Microsoft tax with it. And if Oracle has it's way Goggle will pay up significantly, potentially losing Android altogether, and be forced to force-mature Chrome into handhelds.
All this while Apple is moving on down the road, already planning the next generation of devices in their ecosystem and the next disruption in someone's comfortable little market. Cool thing is, Apple has forced the laissez faire handheld makers into an unwanted competition to build the next big thing - and that is good for all of us.
You probably know Google gives Android away for free. You might think Android development still costs Google money. Well, CEO Eric Schmidt tells Newsweek's Dan Lyons that Android phones already generate enough new ad revenue to cover Google's costs.
I always wondered about these numbers. What does smart phone mean? Mossberg and Pogue say that iPhone is a new category of super smart phones or app phones, I don't think every Android phone qualifies.
Are these analysts counting that every Android phone is an iPhone equivalent? Just like every blackberry even those that can barely browse the web or run apps is counted as a 'smart phone'. Nokia is supposed to have something like 40% world wide smartphone market share, does anyone believe that Nokia is selling so many more iPhone equivalents? Fact is most of those Nokia 'smart phones' are just feature or 'music' phones.
IPhone is only 2% of worldwide cell phone market share,
With that 2% Apple is making 39-48% (Cannacord & Asymco numbers) of total worldwide phone (smart and dumb) profits.
If these guys Nokia, Rim, Android are selling so many super smart phones (iPhone equals) as the analysts Market share numbers suggest WHY IS APPLE MAKING 39-48% OF THE PROFITS?
if Android gets bigger market share by producing huge numbers of lower quality phones eating into the 98% it's not a big deal.
(I of course also agree with the people that argue that iPhone is only one carrier in the U.S and Android is bolstered by BOGO deals)
Except that you CAN make a comparison when you're talking about the user base available to developers and advertisers.
This is where Apple may not care as much as we hope though:
Google's strategy is to get Android on as many phones with as many users as possible. This allows them to serve up Andoid Apps, Google products and Google ads to make money. Google has no share in the profits on the actual OS or the phones.
Apple makes money on the phones, in addition to the App store, iTunes and eventually iAds. This is why they aren't as concerned with lowering the price and opening the platform up to more carriers. Presumably, the subsidy (and Apple's profits) would go down on a per phone basis if Apple were to open the US market up to additional carriers.
Over time though, more and more of the revenue stream will come after the sale of the initial phone. As this increases, the pressure for Apple to get their phone into more hands will increase. If things continue the way they are going, Google will be pretty far ahead, income wise.
Right now, it isn't a big deal to them. As time goes on, it should become more important. And as Apple tries to get their iPhone into more hands, the user experience should improve as a result. Thus, the success of Android should be good news to iPhone users.
The best post I have ever seen on an Apple Fan Site!! FINALLY, someone understands.
Market share absolutely matters to developers, and by extension should matter to end users . If there's one thing Ballmer has right (and he doesn't have much), it's DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS!!! I HAVE to have a Windows machine sitting next to my Mac - I have to have AutoCad, I have to have Oracle Primavera PPM, I have to Loadspring (which requires IE), I have to have several other pieces of Engineering software that isn't available on the Mac. Why isn't it???? Because developers have little interest in developing their software for a machine with a 5% market share...
Same thing WILL happen to iOS if Jobs doesn't wake up..
And PLEASE, some of you, what the hell do I care as an end user what Apple's "Margin is", or "how much profit they make".... I could care less.. I would much rather the Mac and the iPhone to have industry standard software available to it - and the Mac doesn't and iOS won't if Jobs doesn't get his head out of his ass (again)....
The best post I have ever seen on an Apple Fan Site!! FINALLY, someone understands.
Market share absolutely matters to developers, and by extension should matter to end users . If there's one thing Ballmer has right (and he doesn't have much), it's DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS!!! I HAVE to have a Windows machine sitting next to my Mac - I have to have AutoCad, I have to have Oracle Primavera PPM, I have to Loadspring (which requires IE), I have to have several other pieces of Engineering software that isn't available on the Mac. Why isn't it???? Because developers have little interest in developing their software for a machine with a 5% market share...
Same thing WILL happen to iOS if Jobs doesn't wake up..
And PLEASE, some of you, what the hell do I care as an end user what Apple's "Margin is", or "how much profit they make".... I could care less.. I would much rather the Mac and the iPhone to have industry standard software available to it - and the Mac doesn't and iOS won't if Jobs doesn't get his head out of his ass (again)....
great post... just to add, if Apple asked or even paid MS to port Office to iOS (for the iPad) they could kill all netbook sales immediately.
Native office support makes it THE ultimate business tool.
The best post I have ever seen on an Apple Fan Site!! FINALLY, someone understands.
Market share absolutely matters to developers, and by extension should matter to end users . If there's one thing Ballmer has right (and he doesn't have much), it's DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS!!! I HAVE to have a Windows machine sitting next to my Mac - I have to have AutoCad, I have to have Oracle Primavera PPM, I have to Loadspring (which requires IE), I have to have several other pieces of Engineering software that isn't available on the Mac. Why isn't it???? Because developers have little interest in developing their software for a machine with a 5% market share...
Same thing WILL happen to iOS if Jobs doesn't wake up..
And PLEASE, some of you, what the hell do I care as an end user what Apple's "Margin is", or "how much profit they make".... I could care less.. I would much rather the Mac and the iPhone to have industry standard software available to it - and the Mac doesn't and iOS won't if Jobs doesn't get his head out of his ass (again)....
The problem is that people who get their phone for free and have it loaded by Verizon with all kinds of confusing options are a lot less likely to buy an app. The sell-through rate for Android apps is abysmal. Despite Android overtaking iOS in the smartphone market (if you exclude iPod Touch, iPad, and AppleTV), the vast majority of the money to be made by developers is on iOS and that is changing far, far less rapidly. As long as that remains the case market share really doesn't matter.
I agree that going to Verizon is important for Apple so they can go toe-to-toe with Android. But only if Verizon isn't going to ruin the iPhone experience. That will devalue the product beyond any gains the market share would boost it for developers.
Besides, T-Mobile and Sprint together are more people than Verizon, so Apple shouldn't feel like Verizon is necessarily the only target here. If everyone but Verizon had the iPhone they'd have a lot more bargaining power to keep the iPhone's quality up despite Verizon demands.
Comments
If Apple does not want the iPhone to get reduced to Mac like market share numbers, they really really need to move to other carriers. Now, its possible they may be okay with that (after all, Apple makes more out of macs in terms of profit than any other PC maker does).
However, I don't think so. Steve Jobs said that the biggest mistake Apple made in its early years was not go for market share when they needed to. I don't think he is going to repeat that mistake. The moment the ATT exclusivity contract runs out (likely within the year), expect the iPhone to be on TMobile at the very least.
I think its likely they will also hit up Sprint, but Verizon might be doubtful. That still gives Apple access to about 55-60% of mobile customers in the US, so hopefully the number should increase.
Not the issue.
Over here in UK, the picture is pretty similar and iPhone is on all networks.
problem for Apple is their greed and the total cost of ownership compared to a similar Android phone is far higher.
Same Carrier, same tariff, same data allowance.
Galaxy S = 24mths x £20 & free phone = TCO £480
iPhone 4 = 24mths x £30 plus £99 for phone = TCO £819
the S is arguably a better piece of hardware, certainly a better phone so why would people pay 70 or 80% for the inferior product?
this isn't a big mystery.
...Google's revenue from Android = ZERO.
try researching before spouting utter tosh..
You probably know Google gives Android away for free. You might think Android development still costs Google money. Well, CEO Eric Schmidt tells Newsweek's Dan Lyons that Android phones already generate enough new ad revenue to cover Google's costs.
http://gizmodo.com/5655462/in-case-y...le-makes-money
Haha I agree. Too many ex PC users for my liking on the platform already (and on this forum). I wouldn't mind, but their media puppet sheep-like visionless mentality irritates me to no end.
Yeah, yeah, cue the psychological projection...
This is said of the mac communities more and more, but I think it's because the number of switchers have increased rapidly in the last couple of years. As you know, humans are always enthused with learning new things. It will pass....
...Google's revenue from Android = ZERO.
Not really. What about mobile ads? Android market transaction fees?
Those will start to add up, especially when Android is expanding their user base at iOS's expense.
Not really. What about mobile ads? Android market transaction fees?
Those will start to add up, especially when Android is expanding their user base at iOS's expense.
they're sooooo small it's practically ZERO.
Larger market share =/= better products.
Like MS... and Sony...
Like MS... and Sony...
or Android...
Why is this kept getting reported? There has been countless reports already since April that Android devices are outselling the iPhone.
It's sounds as if google is paying for these researches so that they send a message to the development community that the fastest growing market is Andriod. Microsoft When comes into picture will eat andriods lunch as it will be the same vendors which are aligning with Google.
It matters because Google now has a larger user base to sell apps to, to serve ads to, and eventually, to sell media to.
If Google surpasses Apple by enough on this point, Android will become the primary platform that mobile developers are catering to, and iOS will fall behind.
...the developers are making decent revenue on the platform. And that enough users are driving ad revenue for both developers and Google. Does it matter that Android is the primary platform? Probably not for the foreseeable future.
And it irritates me that reports continually conflat sales and installed base and growth numbers as if they were all equally valid. And no one calls them on it. Enough! Use the numbers correctly and stop being such tools. Apple drives profitability with whatever marketshare it deems as most profitable - in the case of the iPods, it's a majority share. In the case of the Mac platform - it's a 2-8% or so depending whose numbers you look at and which markets. But they still in each case own the highest profitability for the segment or market.
And let's not forget Microsoft. They fired the first shot across the Android bow with licensing for HTC. Motorola got the second. Microsoft will make sure that not only will they get their piece of the Android action, but that Android will longer be "free" to the carriers. Each install of Android will carry a Microsoft tax with it. And if Oracle has it's way Goggle will pay up significantly, potentially losing Android altogether, and be forced to force-mature Chrome into handhelds.
All this while Apple is moving on down the road, already planning the next generation of devices in their ecosystem and the next disruption in someone's comfortable little market. Cool thing is, Apple has forced the laissez faire handheld makers into an unwanted competition to build the next big thing - and that is good for all of us.
Like MS... and Sony...
This is where the debate between those who own shares and those who are enthusiasts of the Apple culture, rages on...
they're sooooo small it's practically ZERO.
re-posted due to blindness...
try researching before spouting utter tosh..
You probably know Google gives Android away for free. You might think Android development still costs Google money. Well, CEO Eric Schmidt tells Newsweek's Dan Lyons that Android phones already generate enough new ad revenue to cover Google's costs.
http://gizmodo.com/5655462/in-case-y...le-makes-money
I know it goes both ways... but seriously, do AppleInsider people really care (or believe) what that means?
There we go, the post counter went up by one.
Are these analysts counting that every Android phone is an iPhone equivalent? Just like every blackberry even those that can barely browse the web or run apps is counted as a 'smart phone'. Nokia is supposed to have something like 40% world wide smartphone market share, does anyone believe that Nokia is selling so many more iPhone equivalents? Fact is most of those Nokia 'smart phones' are just feature or 'music' phones.
IPhone is only 2% of worldwide cell phone market share,
With that 2% Apple is making 39-48% (Cannacord & Asymco numbers) of total worldwide phone (smart and dumb) profits.
If these guys Nokia, Rim, Android are selling so many super smart phones (iPhone equals) as the analysts Market share numbers suggest WHY IS APPLE MAKING 39-48% OF THE PROFITS?
if Android gets bigger market share by producing huge numbers of lower quality phones eating into the 98% it's not a big deal.
(I of course also agree with the people that argue that iPhone is only one carrier in the U.S and Android is bolstered by BOGO deals)
Except that you CAN make a comparison when you're talking about the user base available to developers and advertisers.
This is where Apple may not care as much as we hope though:
Google's strategy is to get Android on as many phones with as many users as possible. This allows them to serve up Andoid Apps, Google products and Google ads to make money. Google has no share in the profits on the actual OS or the phones.
Apple makes money on the phones, in addition to the App store, iTunes and eventually iAds. This is why they aren't as concerned with lowering the price and opening the platform up to more carriers. Presumably, the subsidy (and Apple's profits) would go down on a per phone basis if Apple were to open the US market up to additional carriers.
Over time though, more and more of the revenue stream will come after the sale of the initial phone. As this increases, the pressure for Apple to get their phone into more hands will increase. If things continue the way they are going, Google will be pretty far ahead, income wise.
Right now, it isn't a big deal to them. As time goes on, it should become more important. And as Apple tries to get their iPhone into more hands, the user experience should improve as a result. Thus, the success of Android should be good news to iPhone users.
The best post I have ever seen on an Apple Fan Site!! FINALLY, someone understands.
Market share absolutely matters to developers, and by extension should matter to end users . If there's one thing Ballmer has right (and he doesn't have much), it's DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS!!! I HAVE to have a Windows machine sitting next to my Mac - I have to have AutoCad, I have to have Oracle Primavera PPM, I have to Loadspring (which requires IE), I have to have several other pieces of Engineering software that isn't available on the Mac. Why isn't it???? Because developers have little interest in developing their software for a machine with a 5% market share...
Same thing WILL happen to iOS if Jobs doesn't wake up..
And PLEASE, some of you, what the hell do I care as an end user what Apple's "Margin is", or "how much profit they make".... I could care less.. I would much rather the Mac and the iPhone to have industry standard software available to it - and the Mac doesn't and iOS won't if Jobs doesn't get his head out of his ass (again)....
The best post I have ever seen on an Apple Fan Site!! FINALLY, someone understands.
Market share absolutely matters to developers, and by extension should matter to end users . If there's one thing Ballmer has right (and he doesn't have much), it's DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS!!! I HAVE to have a Windows machine sitting next to my Mac - I have to have AutoCad, I have to have Oracle Primavera PPM, I have to Loadspring (which requires IE), I have to have several other pieces of Engineering software that isn't available on the Mac. Why isn't it???? Because developers have little interest in developing their software for a machine with a 5% market share...
Same thing WILL happen to iOS if Jobs doesn't wake up..
And PLEASE, some of you, what the hell do I care as an end user what Apple's "Margin is", or "how much profit they make".... I could care less.. I would much rather the Mac and the iPhone to have industry standard software available to it - and the Mac doesn't and iOS won't if Jobs doesn't get his head out of his ass (again)....
great post... just to add, if Apple asked or even paid MS to port Office to iOS (for the iPad) they could kill all netbook sales immediately.
Native office support makes it THE ultimate business tool.
Article here.
"Fading"... let me guess, the metrics were run first, then the quadrants were defined to slant the meaning of study results.
I like Apple... but those drawings look totally bogus.
The best post I have ever seen on an Apple Fan Site!! FINALLY, someone understands.
Market share absolutely matters to developers, and by extension should matter to end users . If there's one thing Ballmer has right (and he doesn't have much), it's DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS!!! I HAVE to have a Windows machine sitting next to my Mac - I have to have AutoCad, I have to have Oracle Primavera PPM, I have to Loadspring (which requires IE), I have to have several other pieces of Engineering software that isn't available on the Mac. Why isn't it???? Because developers have little interest in developing their software for a machine with a 5% market share...
Same thing WILL happen to iOS if Jobs doesn't wake up..
And PLEASE, some of you, what the hell do I care as an end user what Apple's "Margin is", or "how much profit they make".... I could care less.. I would much rather the Mac and the iPhone to have industry standard software available to it - and the Mac doesn't and iOS won't if Jobs doesn't get his head out of his ass (again)....
The problem is that people who get their phone for free and have it loaded by Verizon with all kinds of confusing options are a lot less likely to buy an app. The sell-through rate for Android apps is abysmal. Despite Android overtaking iOS in the smartphone market (if you exclude iPod Touch, iPad, and AppleTV), the vast majority of the money to be made by developers is on iOS and that is changing far, far less rapidly. As long as that remains the case market share really doesn't matter.
I agree that going to Verizon is important for Apple so they can go toe-to-toe with Android. But only if Verizon isn't going to ruin the iPhone experience. That will devalue the product beyond any gains the market share would boost it for developers.
Besides, T-Mobile and Sprint together are more people than Verizon, so Apple shouldn't feel like Verizon is necessarily the only target here. If everyone but Verizon had the iPhone they'd have a lot more bargaining power to keep the iPhone's quality up despite Verizon demands.