RIM, Motorola post dismal figures for their iPhone, iPad competitors

Posted:
in iPhone edited January 2014
RIM and Motorola both published sales figures for their iPhone and iPad competitors that establish a huge gulf between demand for Apple's products and competitors'.



RIM



Canada's Research In Motion issued a warning stating that its smartphone sales would hit the low end of its projected 13.5 to 14.5 million in unit sales this quarter.



In the third calendar quarter of 2008, Apple's chief executive Steve Jobs first announced that "Apple beat RIM" in quarterly sales, noting that "RIM is a good company that makes good products. And so it is surprising that after only fifteen months on the market that we could outsell them in any quarter."



The two companies' quarters end on different months, but Apple now regularly eclipses RIM in its quarterly smartphone sales. It appears that when RIM does announce its final figures for the most recent quarter, it will be substantially below Apple's 18.65 million iPhones sold in the first three months of 2011.



According to a report by Bloomberg, RIM's warning incited analyst Matt Thorton with Avian Securities to note "the sales on their existing devices must have fallen off a cliff," and that "they are getting hit by a combination of a stale portfolio and heated competition on devices."



Michael Walkley, an analyst at Canaccord Genuity, said RIM's forecast indicates that its high end smartphones like the BlackBerry Torch "have not sold so well."



In the conference with analysts, Jim Balsillie, RIM's co-chief executive officer, explained that "all things being equal, we would love to have these products earlier and not be having this call. Because it?s such a big upgrade, it takes longer.?



The company said RIM's new PlayBook tablet, aimed to compete against Apple's iPad, was selling 'in line with previous estimates,' and stated that the disasters in Japan had not had a significant impact on the company's supply chain.



Motorola phones



Motorola Mobility also reported results today, with its mobile devices group stating revenues up 30 percent to $2.1 billion, but with an operating loss of $89 million.



Motorola shipped 9.3 million mobile devices, a marginal 9.4 percent increase over the year ago quarter where it sold 8.5 million, but it converted a much larger percentage of its mobile device sales from simple feature phones to smartphones.



Sales of smartphones increased by 78.3 percent, from 2.3 million to 4.1 million, jumping from 27 percent of the company's mobile phone mix to 44 percent. Smartphones are not only more expensive but also generally far more profitable to sell.



Apple's smartphone mix is 100 percent of its mobile phones, and the company shows little sign of expanding into the larger but less profitable market for so-called "feature phones." Apple sold 18.65 million iPhones in the quarter, including a new expansion with Verizon Wireless that encroached directly upon Motorola's business.



Behind iPhone 4 and iPhone 3GS, Motorola's Droid X is the third most popular smartphone in the US; NPD reported earlier today that Apple's Verizon launch had caused Google's Android platform to lose ground for the first time in the US. It stated Android had lost three percentage points of share in the US since last winter while RIM had lost 5 and Apple had gained 9 points.



Motorola Xoom ships 250,000 boxes



In tablets sales Motorola reported shipments of 250,000 Xoom tablets, but like Samsung last fall, the company refused to elaborate on how many of those were actually bought by consumers.



The firm's chief financial officer Marc Rothman said only that Xoom sell through was "good," while noting that the new tablet didn't begin shipping until late February, halfway though the quarter.



A report on Motorola's earnings by Moconews said "the Xoom was widely viewed as the Android community?s best answer to the iPad when it was unveiled at CES in January, but response from consumers and reviewers once the device was out in the wild has been less than enthusiastic."



Apple shipped 4.69 million iPads in the first calendar quarter of 2011, but noted that its channel inventory had actually been depleted, indicating that sell through was about 5 million iPads.



The company's chief operations officer Tim Cook said that demand for the iPad was "staggering" and that the company is "heavily backlogged," although it plans to produce "a very large number of iPads" to meet demand over the next quarter.



«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 78
    ghostface147ghostface147 Posts: 1,629member
    Keep it up Apple!
  • Reply 2 of 78
    mlayermlayer Posts: 23member
    Sales are quite "smooth."
  • Reply 3 of 78
    MOT Mobility should have bought Palm, before HP did... Now maybe HP should buy MOT Mobility...
  • Reply 4 of 78
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    I predict the iPad will have a natural monopoly like the iPod.
  • Reply 5 of 78
    bageljoeybageljoey Posts: 1,756member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I predict the iPad will have a natural monopoly like the iPod.



    It sure is beginning to look that way, isn't it?

    The best of the "competition" can't compete on hardware (battery life, size, weight, screen, build quality) nor can they compete on OS quality. They cannot compete on quantity of apps or quality of apps. Finally, they cannot even begin to touch the iPad on the whole ecosystem concept.

    All they have left is random scattered features: USB ports, promise of useable Flash, rootability...



    After two rounds of iPad killers, they appear to be so far behind as to look like a Sandisk MP3 player next to an iPod 5 years ago...
  • Reply 6 of 78
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,589member
    They simply can't compete at any level. To say these competitors have a 26% market share is laughable.
  • Reply 7 of 78
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,589member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post


    It sure is beginning to look that way, isn't it?

    The best of the "competition" can't compete on hardware (battery life, size, weight, screen, build quality) nor can they compete on OS quality. They cannot compete on quantity of apps or quality of apps. Finally, they cannot even begin to touch the iPad on the whole ecosystem concept.

    All they have left is random scattered features: USB ports, promise of useable Flash, rootability...



    After two rounds of iPad killers, they appear to be so far behind as to look like a Sandisk MP3 player next to an iPod 5 years ago...



    And another key point that you left out - they can't attract and support a sustainable developer community of any meaningful size because of all their inherent flaws. Developers want to make money and these platforms don't even come close to delivering.
  • Reply 8 of 78
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,486member
    But Canalyst's survey said that competing tablets had a 26% market share!
  • Reply 9 of 78
    This is incredibly embarrassing and sad. I am surprised that their Boards aren't getting in front of this slow and inevitable train wreck more aggressively (the senior management obviously is not capable of doing this).



    A lot of shareholder value and jobs are going to get destroyed.



    Given how difficult this is turning out to be for just about everyone else, one has to simply marvel at what Apple has accomplished here. What an amazing machine Jobs has put in place!
  • Reply 10 of 78
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,359member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post


    And another key point that you left out - they can't attract and support a sustainable developer community of any meaningful size because of all their inherent flaws. Developers want to make money and these platforms don't even come close to delivering.



    Right and new this just makes the bad situation even worse for them. It is a vicious cycle that is spiraling down to the land of Zune.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post


    But Canalyst's survey said that competing tablets had a 26% market share!





    I bet that was shipped not sold product making up that number.
  • Reply 11 of 78
    mennomenno Posts: 854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I predict the iPad will have a natural monopoly like the iPod.



    Possibly short term. I'm thinking that in the near future (5 years or so) HTML5 will improve to a level that making webapps (with offline access) will become feasible, so the OS will start to matter less.



    I'm kinda curious to see how the WebOS tablet and whatever Nokia is cooking turn out myself.
  • Reply 12 of 78
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    Possibly short term. I'm thinking that in the near future (5 years or so) HTML5 will improve to a level that making webapps (with offline access) will become feasible, so the OS will start to matter less.



    I'm kinda curious to see how the WebOS tablet and whatever Nokia is cooking turn out myself.



    Yeah, in the meantime, Apple will do nothing between now and five years from now.



    Get real.
  • Reply 13 of 78
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    Possibly short term. I'm thinking that in the near future (5 years or so) HTML5 will improve to a level that making webapps (with offline access) will become feasible, so the OS will start to matter less.



    I'm kinda curious to see how the WebOS tablet and whatever Nokia is cooking turn out myself.



    I?m sure in 5 years webcode(HTML/CSS/JS) will improve even more dramatically than they have in teh past 5 years, but so will Xcode and other native development platforms. People thought Java would do the same thing and it did get better as HW improved but it was still was subpar compared to native apps.
  • Reply 14 of 78
    grouty2grouty2 Posts: 42member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Menno View Post


    Possibly short term. I'm thinking that in the near future (5 years or so)



    Except 5 human years equates to about a hundred iPad years - 5 generations! A very long time in this industry. In 5 years everything could have changed.
  • Reply 15 of 78
    psych_guypsych_guy Posts: 460member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I predict the iPad will have a natural monopoly like the iPod.



    While I think I agree with your statement, there's nothing "natural" about it. Apple designed, manufactured, marketed and sold the hell out of this thing right out of the gate. They left their competitors with only a ghost of a chance to catch up.



    Apple worked hard to create this "monopoly".
  • Reply 16 of 78
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    I wonder if the Xoom's smooth sales covered the cost of the Superbowl Ad?
  • Reply 17 of 78
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Psych_guy View Post


    While I think I agree with your statement, there's nothing "natural" about it. Apple designed, manufactured, marketed and sold the hell out of this thing right out of the gate. They left their competitors with only a ghost of a chance to catch up.



    Apple worked hard to create this "monopoly".



    I was using natural in two ways. The first with the common definition and the other to imply it was not had illegally.
    A monopoly describes a situation where all (or most) sales in a market are undertaken by a single firm. A natural monopoly by contrast is a condition on the cost-technology of an industry whereby it is most efficient (involving the lowest long-run average cost) for production to be concentrated in a single form. In some cases, this gives the largest supplier in an industry, often the first supplier in a market, an overwhelming cost advantage over other actual and potential competitors. This tends to be the case in industries where capital costs predominate, creating economies of scale that are large in relation to the size of the market, and hence high barriers to entry.
  • Reply 18 of 78
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Psych_guy View Post


    While I think I agree with your statement, there's nothing "natural" about it. Apple designed, manufactured, marketed and sold the hell out of this thing right out of the gate. They left their competitors with only a ghost of a chance to catch up.



    Apple worked hard to create this "monopoly".



    I realize you are perhaps making a different point, but just so his original point does not get lost, the term 'natural monopoly' has a somewhat specific set of meanings and implications in both economics and antitrust law.



    (I see that solipsism was typing at the same time I was).
  • Reply 19 of 78
    hittrj01hittrj01 Posts: 753member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Psych_guy View Post


    While I think I agree with your statement, there's nothing "natural" about it. Apple designed, manufactured, marketed and sold the hell out of this thing right out of the gate. They left their competitors with only a ghost of a chance to catch up.



    Apple worked hard to create this "monopoly".



    No doubt Apple worked their butts off, that's why they have a natural monopoly. The term doesn't mean it just randomly happened, it just means that there aren't artificial barriers to competition. When Microsoft pushed Netscape out of the picture, that is not a natural monopoly. Apple didn't force anybody out of the industry, they just made a superior product with superior support, vision, and attention to detail that nobody could ever come close to matching.
  • Reply 20 of 78
    today i was writing about poor management at microsoft ( http://bit.ly/kioBg2 ) and mentioning it as an example of an absolutely badly managed company. I forgot RIM as another example of folks determined to run their business into the ground by their prided blindness.
Sign In or Register to comment.