Android has already won market share. If not today, then very soon. It would be silly for Apple to compete with that. iPhone will sell less and less and in a few years, its out of the game. Better concentrate on iPads while they can. Eventually Google/Android will win that also and goodbye iPads.
It's possible to pick up a Samsung Galaxy Europa Android smartphone for £40 ($60 inc. tax) off contract in the UK.
Android may have its faults but I think it's great to see smartphones available to all members of society.
That' great, I truly agree. But that market segment is not where Apple is positioned.
It's wonderful that Android is; wonderful for them, but not for Google or the Android handset makers. Samsung must lose money on every phone sold for $60: how long can (will) they remain in that segment of the business?
When you travel, you can use a business centre, a computer at your other office, your laptop running on hotel wifi, an internet cafe, etc. Comparatively if you want to use iWork and iCloud, you need to constantly work, only on an iDevice or a Mac and only using iWork.
What about when I'm on the tube/subway/airplane/road?
Quote:
Don't get me wrong. I like, and use iWork, and if I get a tablet, one of the big reasons for me going iPad will be iWork
Don't get me wrong I use google docs often for things that I want to share widely, like baby spreadsheets for MMOs and such. I just wouldn't want to use them for anything that I wanted reliable access to, in that instance device+cloud is superior.
and I wouldn't rely on it for business critical documents.
in the interest of accuracy that isn't correct. There are two apple phones that are around 200,000 per day combined. The other 100,000 iOS activations per day consists of iPads & iPods Touchs.
Apple is a business, a rather successful one I might add, it's not a welfare office and it's not a charity.
Of course Android is going to sell a lot, especially when they're practically giving many of them away for free. In third world markets people make practically no money. These kind of customers aren't even worth having as they have no purchasing power and they aren't about to go out and buy a bunch of apps and accessories, thereby supporting the platform's ecosystem and making it grow.
80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day. This means that there is a huge customer base and demand for Android phones, sanitary toilets and clean water. Can you imagine how bacteria ridden and filthy some people's Android phones must be? They might be downright dangerous to somebody's health. Some of Android's potential customer base doesn't even know what toilet paper is.
That' great, I truly agree. But that market segment is not where Apple is positioned.
It's wonderful that Android is; wonderful for them, but not for Google or the Android handset makers. Samsung must lose money on every phone sold for $60: how long can (will) they remain in that segment of the business?
I think you're mistaking a subsidized Android phone offer from a carrier as indicative of the manufacturer's selling price to that carrier. I doubt Apple is selling iPhone 3G's to AT&T for less than $50, and Samsung isn't selling their phones for $50 either.
in the interest of accuracy that isn't correct. There are two apple phones that are around 200,000 per day combined. The other 100,000 iOS activations per day consists of iPads & iPods Touchs.
Dude, seriously? Where is the embedded version of OS X or Win7 one could use as a replacement?
First he never suggested that it was competing with a desktop OS, there are for-pay embedded OSes too you know. Second he's absolutely right, a major reason that embedded linux is popular is because it's free.
In a new whitepaper on Linux in the embedded market, VDC researchers cite the following reasons for Linux's popularity:Licensing cost advantages Flexibility of source code access General familiarity Maturing ecosystem of applications and tools Growing developer experience with Linux as an embedded OS
That's not part of the 300k/day. Apple generally don't include Apple TV in the comparison because they've gone along with the definition of the market as mobile computing and Apple TV obviously isn't.
Not that it would be a material number anyway, Apple TV is by Apple's own admission 'hobbyist'.
It does not count though, it like comparing apple to microsoft. Googl and microsoft do not solely sell and build their own hardwares. Apple is a single company and I think in terms of its output, it should be counted not the amount of activations, but the amount of ACTIVE android users.... So, no, these numbers does NOT count
I think you're mistaking a subsidized Android phone offer from a carrier as indicative of the manufacturer's selling price to that carrier. I doubt Apple is selling iPhone 3G's to AT&T for less than $50, and Samsung isn't selling their phones for $50 either.
I am mistaking things?
Why don't I have RichL (the original poster to whom I was responding) address this.
Jobs has a theory about that, too. Once a company devises a great product, he says, it has a monopoly in that realm, and concentrates less on innovation than protecting its turf. "The Mac-user interface was a 10-year monopoly," says Jobs. "Who ended up running the company? Sales guys. At the critical juncture in the late '80s, when they should have gone for market share, they went for profits. They made obscene profits for several years. And their products became mediocre. And then their monopoly ended with Windows 95. They behaved like a monopoly, and it came back to bite them, which always happens."
I honestly reckon if Steve Jobs came on here, was verified as Steve Jobs, and said that exact statement we would still get the "Apple dont care about Market Share" response. People would probably tell him to p*ss off. What does he know?
Sure he said that. But you don't apply this strategic hammer to everything you do, and it's highly doubtful Jobs uses this hammer everytime. If Apple goes downmarket with the iPad, maybe he is thinking this, but they never did that with the cell phone market.
1st gen iPhone: $500-$600 w/contract, than $400 w/contract, exclusive carriers, slow international rollout.
2nd gen iPhone (3G): $200 w/contract, exclusive carriers, steady rollout; sold at $99 w/contract when 3GS shipped.
3rd gen iPhone (3GS): $200 w/contract, exclusive carriers, steady rollout through more carriers; sold at $99 w/contract when 4 shipped.
4th gen iPhone (4): $200 w/contract, more carriers throughout the world.
Where is the "gone for marketshare" strategy in this? It's not there. No distribution through lots of carriers early on, no low-cost models, no pre-paid models, etc. They didn't even have deals with the largest carriers in the USA, China and Japan through most of this time span.
They have been shipping a premium product at premium prices with exclusive distribution throughout the life of the iPhone. The only difference between 2007 and today is that Apple has abandoned the "full price + contract" model with a subsidized one, and has increased the amount of carriers by a factor of 10 or so. They still maintain a category crushing $650 ASP for iPhones throughout this time span. That's 2x in more than RIM and 9x more than Nokia in ASP. (This was even with the iPhone 3G/3GS at $99 w/contract).
This should lead you to the conclusion that Apple is not going for marketshare with the iPhone and the cell phone market. It's not hard to think of reasons. Cell phone marketshare is gated by carriers (in retail and in service costs). There's always the question of manufacturing capacity. Margins are lower. Those are all things Apple does not like.
If Jobs was asked the question, I'd imagine he'd always say profits first. How you get those profits, whether through marketshare dominance, premium market, indirect, is entirely up to the playing field. The cell phone market was not a level playing field. It is not an emerging market, and has mature and many powerful entities.
If he said anything else, I'd consider him misguided or he turned stupid or began to listen run-of-the-mill analysts who generally are misguided or stupid. The strategy Apple went with ultimately yielded a great result: Apple is the cell phone maker with the most revenue and profits.
Will the loss of marketshare knock them off this pedestal? Maybe, but they have an equal chance to continue to be the cell phone maker with the most revenue and profit at 10% to 20% marketshare levels.
Anantksundaram, I'd love to see his link. I suspect Rich L. is mistaken too. Even tho it's a capacitive, no multi-touch phone, I couldn't find one new and off-contract for less than $160 equivalent in Europe from the 4 sites I looked at.
While there could well be discontinued or refurb smartphones selling to the public for less than $100 off-contract, you're way too informed to really believe that any phone manufacturer would sell products on a regular basis for well under the cost of materials alone.
Comments
Android has already won market share. If not today, then very soon. It would be silly for Apple to compete with that. iPhone will sell less and less and in a few years, its out of the game. Better concentrate on iPads while they can. Eventually Google/Android will win that also and goodbye iPads.
hmmm their is ONE
APPLE PHONE 300,000. DAY
HMMM
their is 50 or more heemmoroid phones that TOTAL
5000,000. A DAY
SO WHO CARES what you say or who you.....
iphone is super sweet
9
Android may have its faults but I think it's great to see smartphones available to all members of society.
Thus, Google is making an extra $50 per day.
If that...
It's possible to pick up a Samsung Galaxy Europa Android smartphone for £40 ($60 inc. tax) off contract in the UK.
Android may have its faults but I think it's great to see smartphones available to all members of society.
That' great, I truly agree. But that market segment is not where Apple is positioned.
It's wonderful that Android is; wonderful for them, but not for Google or the Android handset makers. Samsung must lose money on every phone sold for $60: how long can (will) they remain in that segment of the business?
When you travel, you can use a business centre, a computer at your other office, your laptop running on hotel wifi, an internet cafe, etc. Comparatively if you want to use iWork and iCloud, you need to constantly work, only on an iDevice or a Mac and only using iWork.
What about when I'm on the tube/subway/airplane/road?
Don't get me wrong. I like, and use iWork, and if I get a tablet, one of the big reasons for me going iPad will be iWork
Don't get me wrong I use google docs often for things that I want to share widely, like baby spreadsheets for MMOs and such. I just wouldn't want to use them for anything that I wanted reliable access to, in that instance device+cloud is superior.
and I wouldn't rely on it for business critical documents.
hmmm their is ONE
APPLE PHONE 300,000. DAY
in the interest of accuracy that isn't correct. There are two apple phones that are around 200,000 per day combined. The other 100,000 iOS activations per day consists of iPads & iPods Touchs.
Android is "open" to virus attacks - and other malicious code - and you are "free" from any sort of quality control.
You'd do well working in the Chinese government. The people do not want freedom, WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST!
Of course Android is going to sell a lot, especially when they're practically giving many of them away for free. In third world markets people make practically no money. These kind of customers aren't even worth having as they have no purchasing power and they aren't about to go out and buy a bunch of apps and accessories, thereby supporting the platform's ecosystem and making it grow.
80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day. This means that there is a huge customer base and demand for Android phones, sanitary toilets and clean water. Can you imagine how bacteria ridden and filthy some people's Android phones must be? They might be downright dangerous to somebody's health. Some of Android's potential customer base doesn't even know what toilet paper is.
"In a follow up tweet, Rubin admits that 400,000 of these activations are on $25 android phones in china."
Liar.
Oh, it's a joke? Well, not really funny. Nice try.
That' great, I truly agree. But that market segment is not where Apple is positioned.
It's wonderful that Android is; wonderful for them, but not for Google or the Android handset makers. Samsung must lose money on every phone sold for $60: how long can (will) they remain in that segment of the business?
I think you're mistaking a subsidized Android phone offer from a carrier as indicative of the manufacturer's selling price to that carrier. I doubt Apple is selling iPhone 3G's to AT&T for less than $50, and Samsung isn't selling their phones for $50 either.
in the interest of accuracy that isn't correct. There are two apple phones that are around 200,000 per day combined. The other 100,000 iOS activations per day consists of iPads & iPods Touchs.
Let's add Apple TV to that, while we at it.
Dude, seriously? Where is the embedded version of OS X or Win7 one could use as a replacement?
First he never suggested that it was competing with a desktop OS, there are for-pay embedded OSes too you know. Second he's absolutely right, a major reason that embedded linux is popular is because it's free.
In a new whitepaper on Linux in the embedded market, VDC researchers cite the following reasons for Linux's popularity:Licensing cost advantages
Flexibility of source code access
General familiarity
Maturing ecosystem of applications and tools
Growing developer experience with Linux as an embedded OS
Source: http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/N...p-embedded-OS/
Let's add Apple TV to that, while we at it.
That's not part of the 300k/day. Apple generally don't include Apple TV in the comparison because they've gone along with the definition of the market as mobile computing and Apple TV obviously isn't.
Not that it would be a material number anyway, Apple TV is by Apple's own admission 'hobbyist'.
I think you're mistaking a subsidized Android phone offer from a carrier as indicative of the manufacturer's selling price to that carrier. I doubt Apple is selling iPhone 3G's to AT&T for less than $50, and Samsung isn't selling their phones for $50 either.
I am mistaking things?
Why don't I have RichL (the original poster to whom I was responding) address this.
Thanks for your (unneeded) input.
Right tool for the right job. I'm typing this on my Mac, after which I'll get back to my ssh session on my Ubuntu server.
I dunno how you can bear Ubuntu - at least go with a decent distro!
Jobs has a theory about that, too. Once a company devises a great product, he says, it has a monopoly in that realm, and concentrates less on innovation than protecting its turf. "The Mac-user interface was a 10-year monopoly," says Jobs. "Who ended up running the company? Sales guys. At the critical juncture in the late '80s, when they should have gone for market share, they went for profits. They made obscene profits for several years. And their products became mediocre. And then their monopoly ended with Windows 95. They behaved like a monopoly, and it came back to bite them, which always happens."
I honestly reckon if Steve Jobs came on here, was verified as Steve Jobs, and said that exact statement we would still get the "Apple dont care about Market Share" response. People would probably tell him to p*ss off. What does he know?
Sure he said that. But you don't apply this strategic hammer to everything you do, and it's highly doubtful Jobs uses this hammer everytime. If Apple goes downmarket with the iPad, maybe he is thinking this, but they never did that with the cell phone market.
1st gen iPhone: $500-$600 w/contract, than $400 w/contract, exclusive carriers, slow international rollout.
2nd gen iPhone (3G): $200 w/contract, exclusive carriers, steady rollout; sold at $99 w/contract when 3GS shipped.
3rd gen iPhone (3GS): $200 w/contract, exclusive carriers, steady rollout through more carriers; sold at $99 w/contract when 4 shipped.
4th gen iPhone (4): $200 w/contract, more carriers throughout the world.
Where is the "gone for marketshare" strategy in this? It's not there. No distribution through lots of carriers early on, no low-cost models, no pre-paid models, etc. They didn't even have deals with the largest carriers in the USA, China and Japan through most of this time span.
They have been shipping a premium product at premium prices with exclusive distribution throughout the life of the iPhone. The only difference between 2007 and today is that Apple has abandoned the "full price + contract" model with a subsidized one, and has increased the amount of carriers by a factor of 10 or so. They still maintain a category crushing $650 ASP for iPhones throughout this time span. That's 2x in more than RIM and 9x more than Nokia in ASP. (This was even with the iPhone 3G/3GS at $99 w/contract).
This should lead you to the conclusion that Apple is not going for marketshare with the iPhone and the cell phone market. It's not hard to think of reasons. Cell phone marketshare is gated by carriers (in retail and in service costs). There's always the question of manufacturing capacity. Margins are lower. Those are all things Apple does not like.
If Jobs was asked the question, I'd imagine he'd always say profits first. How you get those profits, whether through marketshare dominance, premium market, indirect, is entirely up to the playing field. The cell phone market was not a level playing field. It is not an emerging market, and has mature and many powerful entities.
If he said anything else, I'd consider him misguided or he turned stupid or began to listen run-of-the-mill analysts who generally are misguided or stupid. The strategy Apple went with ultimately yielded a great result: Apple is the cell phone maker with the most revenue and profits.
Will the loss of marketshare knock them off this pedestal? Maybe, but they have an equal chance to continue to be the cell phone maker with the most revenue and profit at 10% to 20% marketshare levels.
While there could well be discontinued or refurb smartphones selling to the public for less than $100 off-contract, you're way too informed to really believe that any phone manufacturer would sell products on a regular basis for well under the cost of materials alone.