Your point is flawed. Higher marketshare doesn't mean that a product will be better. If a company is continuing to lose money to obtain that market share then they will continue to cut even more corners to try to reduce their costs to obtain it. There is a reason why Apple is seen as the only PC manufacture who innovates. Dell, HP, Acer they, in fact, do innovate, but they innovate new ways to cut corners as they race to the bottom and in the process they have soiled their brands so much that Apple dominates all profitable portion of the PC market to such an extent that they can't compete. So, yes, so show me a company that knows how to create a profit on a product that people love and I'll show a company that knows how to add value to their products. There is a reason Apple, of all the CE companies, is able to create products that hold their value.
I thought he was talking about the OSes, not the machines.
For now. You are not really arguing the point. Do you think that us iOS is at 1% devs will be around? If not then market share matters.
What's odd - to me - is the hostility to market share increases by sone iOS owners, providing profits are maintained ( and why wouldn't they be?) I suppose they feel less special.
I think if Android had remained cohesive and controlled, then it might be a different story, comparable to the Mac/PC era. On the other hand it might have died a quick death.
As it is, though, with Android being forked to death, developers are getting more and more loath to develop for Android.
Your point is flawed. Higher marketshare doesn't mean that a product will be better. If a company is continuing to lose money to obtain that market share then they will continue to cut even more corners to try to reduce their costs to obtain it. There is a reason why Apple is seen as the only PC manufacture who innovates. Dell, HP, Acer they, in fact, do innovate, but they innovate new ways to cut corners as they race to the bottom and in the process they have soiled their brands so much that Apple dominates all profitable portion of the PC market to such an extent that they can't compete. So, yes, so show me a company that knows how to create a profit on a product that people love and I'll show a company that knows how to add value to their products. There is a reason Apple, of all the CE companies, is able to create products that hold their value.
None of this is relevant to my point. You are talking about manufacturers profit not market share of a platform - like iOS , Windows, or Android.
As I said before Apple used to have the biggest profits in the PC world in 1992. A few years later they were broke with an aging OS. It took the purchase of Next, the integration of NEXT OS and most importantly the arrival of Jobs - effectively a reverse takeover which wont happen again. That's a one off.
The profits malarkey is a smoke screen.
iOS is a platform. Get them young or poor and you keep them old and rich. To get them young and poor a cheaper device is needed.
Apple knows this. If all they wanted was hardware profits they would forego the profits from services and software. That is reduce the 30% "Apple tax" or allow competitors to bypass In App Purchasing. They keep the cost of services high to subsidise a future cheap iPhone.
Your point is flawed. Higher marketshare doesn't mean that a product will be better. If a company is continuing to lose money to obtain that market share then they will continue to cut even more corners to try to reduce their costs to obtain it. There is a reason why Apple is seen as the only PC manufacture who innovates. Dell, HP, Acer they, in fact, do innovate, but they innovate new ways to cut corners as they race to the bottom and in the process they have soiled their brands so much that Apple dominates all profitable portion of the PC market to such an extent that they can't compete. So, yes, so show me a company that knows how to create a profit on a product that people love and I'll show a company that knows how to add value to their products. There is a reason Apple, of all the CE companies, is able to create products that hold their value.
None of this is relevant to my point. You are talking about manufacturers profit not market share of a platform - like iOS , Windows, or Android.
As I said before Apple used to have the biggest profits in the PC world in 1992. A few years later they were broke with an aging OS. It took the purchase of Next, the integration of NEXT OS and most importantly the arrival of Jobs - effectively a reverse takeover which wont happen again. That's a one off.
The profits malarkey is a smoke screen.
iOS is a platform. Get them young or poor and you keep them old and rich. To get them young and poor a cheaper device is needed.
Apple knows this. If all they wanted was hardware profits they would forego the profits from services and software. That is reduce the 30% "Apple tax" or allow competitors to bypass In App Purchasing. They keep the cost of services high to subsidise a future cheap iPhone.
Your point is flawed. Higher marketshare doesn't mean that a product will be better. If a company is continuing to lose money to obtain that market share then they will continue to cut even more corners to try to reduce their costs to obtain it. There is a reason why Apple is seen as the only PC manufacture who innovates. Dell, HP, Acer they, in fact, do innovate, but they innovate new ways to cut corners as they race to the bottom and in the process they have soiled their brands so much that Apple dominates all profitable portion of the PC market to such an extent that they can't compete. So, yes, so show me a company that knows how to create a profit on a product that people love and I'll show a company that knows how to add value to their products. There is a reason Apple, of all the CE companies, is able to create products that hold their value.
None of this is relevant to my point. You are talking about manufacturers profit not market share of a platform - like iOS , Windows, or Android.
As I said before Apple used to have the biggest profits in the PC world in 1992. A few years later they were broke with an aging OS. It took the purchase of Next, the integration of NEXT OS and most importantly the arrival of Jobs - effectively a reverse takeover which wont happen again. That's a one off.
The profits malarkey is a smoke screen.
iOS is a platform. Get them young or poor and you keep them old and rich. To get them young and poor a cheaper device is needed.
Apple knows this. If all they wanted was hardware profits they would forego the profits from services and software. That is reduce the 30% "Apple tax" or allow competitors to bypass In App Purchasing. They keep the cost of services high to subsidise a future cheap iPhone.
None of this is relevant to my point. You are talking about manufacturers profit not market share of a platform - like iOS , Windows, or Android.
As I said before Apple used to have the biggest profits in the PC world in 1992. A few years later they were broke with an aging OS. It took the purchase of Next, the integration of NEXT OS and most importantly the arrival of Jobs - effectively a reverse takeover which wont happen again. That's a one off.
The profits malarkey is a smoke screen.
iOS is a platform. Get them young or poor and you keep them old and rich. To get them young and poor a cheaper device is needed.
Apple knows this. If all they wanted was hardware profits they would forego the profits from services and software. That is reduce the 30% "Apple tax" or allow competitors to bypass In App Purchasing. They keep the cost of services high to subsidise a future cheap iPhone.
Word.
1) It's all relevant to your point that market share is more important than a company actually turning a profit.
2) So now it's an all or nothing model? If your goal is to sell a HW product then charging anything to support services to sell more HW means your business model is flawed?
3) Now it's an Apple tax to charge 30% for App Store sales? I guess I'm a little late realizing that you're just trolling.
"Why would a consumer care about profits. Market share guarantees developer interest." ~ asdasd
I suppose he could have been talking about the development of computers. :err:
I guess it could be read as referring to only OS or SW but I'd expect someone who is specifically stating that market share v profit being vastly different between SW and HW to specifically state that otherwise I assume they are making a general point that traverses all areas of business.
His comment didn't qualify any such allowances.
1) It's all relevant to your point that market share is more important than a company actually turning a profit.
2) So now it's an all or nothing model? If your goal is to sell a HW product then charging anything to support services to sell more HW means your business model is flawed?
3) Now it's an Apple tax to charge 30% for App Store sales? I guess I'm a little late realizing that you're just trolling.
3) The term "tax" is probably not as pejorative as you think. Nevertheless I reported your post as accusations of "trolling" is a form of well poisoning.
To return to the argument
1) Market share is far more important to this platform than Apples profit. Devs don't care about profit for Apple but themselves. Except for the trivial claim that were Apple to make a loss it would go out of business that is obviously the case.
2) Saying apples model is flawed is your own straw man. I didn't. If apple just wanted just a high margin hardware business case it could spur sales by reducing the Apple percentage, thus making apps cheaper or devs richer. For instance it could compete with the kindle fire by reducing the percentage on iBooks. That it is not doing that indicates it wants to see iOS as providing a long term service model. It's both hardware and software sales. Catch somebody with a cheap iPhone and it's profit for life.
Yeah. That's my point. The higher the market share the more likely all this is to happen particularly on a platform, and iOS is a platform.
What I don't get is apple fans who are hostile to increase in market share - via cheaper devices - why argue against that?
Complete this statement:
Apple needs more market share because of __________
I think we've already shown that Apple is a hugely successful company in no danger of going out of business. Their developers are happy. Their customers are happy.
And all this while not being the #1 in market share. (worldwide)
So what is it about market share that you think is so important?
OK.... you say Apple should make cheaper devices to gain more market share. Like I asked earlier... what would be the result?
Look at Android. It has a ton of market share credited directly to multiple manufacturers and inexpensive devices.
So... besides the title of "market share leader" what are the actual benefits to Android having so much market share?
And... what are the disadvantages to Apple having less market share?
Complete this statement: Apple needs more market share because of __________
I think we've already shown that Apple is a hugely successful company in no danger of going out of business. Their developers are happy. Their customers are happy.
And all this while not being the #1 in market share. (worldwide)
So what is it about market share that you think is so important?
OK.... you say Apple should make cheaper devices to gain more market share. Like I asked earlier... what would be the result?
Look at Android. It has a ton of market share credited directly to multiple manufacturers and inexpensive devices.
So... besides the title of "market share leader" what are the actual benefits to Android having so much market share?
And... what are the disadvantages to Apple having less market share?
No, no, they need Android's marketshare so all their device "activations" can have a 1:1 ratio for web and app usage stats... oh, wait.
Apple needs more market share because of __________
I think we've already shown that Apple is a hugely successful company in no danger of going out of business. Their developers are happy. Their customers are happy.
And all this while not being the #1 in market share. (worldwide)
So what is it about market share that you think is so important?
OK.... you say Apple should make cheaper devices to gain more market share. Like I asked earlier... what would be the result?
Look at Android. It has a ton of market share credited directly to multiple manufacturers and inexpensive devices.
So... besides the title of "market share leader" what are the actual benefits to Android having so much market share?
And... what are the disadvantages to Apple having less market share?
The historical record has shown - and this is the third time I have said this - that if you sacrifice market share for short term profits you lose both. I am a bit tired of making the same argument, and getting the same question. I have already answered this question and here I go again.
Apple would have gone out of business if it hadn't had the smarts to buy out NEXT. It had 12 percent market share in 1992 but huge profits - possibly the biggest in the business - and that fell to 3 percent in 1998. It also lost profit. Profit will eventually follow market share in platform. In fact dont take my word on this, tkae Job's himself, who criticised Apple in that era for being run by salesmen, obsessed with profit.
I feel a bit like its groundhog day in here because I have already answered this. If you want, you can explain why this time is different ( who knows it might be but you would have to have an argument on that) but I, and history, have already answered the reason why we shouldn't be relaxed on declining, or static, market share.
If I were to argue against my own point - to give you some hints - I would say that Apple is dominant in the richer markets. Or it is doing well in the enterprise, So thats not like 1992.
However I think Apple will possibly never recover in Spain. I mean its pretty much non-existent in Spain. And I would be surprised if any devs in Spain were producing for iOS first. That would be madness. Apple may well, therefore, have permanently lost Spain.
So if Spain is Apple's future, then it will be in decline. However Spain probably is one of those countries where everything is pre=paid so a cheap phone might work.
I dont really get the counter arguments to cheaper phones. Even if margins fall overall profits can increase with higher volume. More importantly for a platform, if someone gets an iPhone and is locked in he is there for life. If he gets his iPhone at 20 then Apple is golden for decades, with all this stuff in the iCloud.
And thats the main reason for the iCloud, lockin. After all people are arguing here than Android users are more likely to defect. I agree. Thats true, for now. Until Google gets it's act together, and offers as much as the iTunes ecosystem.
Whats happening now is a scramble for life long customers. To win that Apple needs cheap phones, and sooner rather than later.
If I were to argue against my own point - to give you some hints - I would say that Apple is dominant in the richer markets. Or it is doing well in the enterprise, So thats not like 1992.
However I think Apple will possibly never recover in Spain. I mean its pretty much non-existent in Spain. And I would be surprised if any devs in Spain were producing for iOS first. That would be madness. Apple may well, therefore, have permanently lost Spain.
So if Spain is Apple's future, then it will be in decline. However Spain probably is one of those countries where everything is pre=paid so a cheap phone might work.
I dont really get the counter arguments to cheaper phones. Even if margins fall overall profits can increase with higher volume. More importantly for a platform, if someone gets an iPhone and is locked in he is there for life. If he gets his iPhone at 20 then Apple is golden for decades, with all this stuff in the iCloud.
And thats the main reason for the iCloud, lockin. After all people are arguing here than Android users are more likely to defect. I agree. Thats true, for now. Until Google gets it's act together, and offers as much as the iTunes ecosystem.
Whats happening now is a scramble for life long customers. To win that Apple needs cheap phones, and sooner rather than later.
Spain is probably the best argument in your defense. If you were able to find out more stats on developer specifics it could prove hands down that falling market share will eventually lead to decreased development, regardless of the margins being made.
If I were to argue against my own point - to give you some hints - I would say that Apple is dominant in the richer markets. Or it is doing well in the enterprise, So thats not like <span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;">1992. </span>
However I think Apple will possibly never recover in Spain. I mean its pretty much non-existent in Spain. And I would be surprised if any devs in Spain were producing for iOS first. That would be madness. Apple may well, therefore, have permanently lost Spain.
So if Spain is Apple's future, then it will be in decline. However Spain probably is one of those countries where everything is pre=paid so a cheap phone might work.
I dont really get the counter arguments to cheaper phones. Even if margins fall overall profits can increase with higher volume. More importantly for a platform, if someone gets an iPhone and is locked in he is there for life. If he gets his iPhone at 20 then Apple is golden for decades, with all this stuff in the iCloud.
And thats the main reason for the iCloud, lockin. After all people are arguing here than Android users are more likely to defect. I agree. Thats true, for now. Until Google gets it's act together, and offers as much as the iTunes ecosystem.
Whats happening now is a scramble for life long customers. To win that Apple needs cheap phones, and sooner rather than later.
OK... with the exception of Spain... Apple is in 2nd place with 20%+ in the other countries.
The 3rd place is single digits.
If you're saying Apple is in trouble... what can you say about those other guys?
I'm just having a hard time believing Apple is in trouble for not selling enough phones compared to the other guys... but they're still making billions upon billions of dollars.
The difference between Apple in the 1990s and Apple today is roughly 120 billion dollars. Apple doesn't need a bailout anymore... nor are they in danger of going out of business. History is a bit different this time around.
You may say "Oh noes... the iPhone is losing to Android the same way the Mac lost to Windows..."
But really... is there any comparison?
Apple doesn't make "cheap" products. It's not in their DNA. Sure, they could move up a couple notches on the market share chart... but I'm saying that chart is a false idol.
Yes... Android has a ton of market share. And that is spread out over a dozen manufacturers and hundreds of phones. Yippee.
The fact that Apple, a single company, can have 20%-30% is actually remarkable. And they have insane profits... developers love the platform... and so do customers. What's the problem again?
If Android's success is the result of cheap phones... how are those manufacturers doing? Is it all roses?
I've showed you this chart before... projected worldwide smartphone sales by OEM in 2012:
Smartphones
28% Samsung
20% Apple
5% Nokia
5% HTC
5% RIM
Only 2 of the companies in the top 5 are selling Android devices... Samsung and HTC. That means the bulk of Android phones are coming from even smaller companies.
And those phones are likely cheap and are sold to people who don't have a lot of money. And who aren't gonna spend money on apps, music or a platform in general.
So... is that the market Apple should be chasing?
I don't think so!
"Android is winning" is your battle cry... but I don't believe in it.
Apple needs more market share because of __________
I think we've already shown that Apple is a hugely successful company in no danger of going out of business. Their developers are happy. Their customers are happy.
And all this while not being the #1 in market share. (worldwide)
...because of the need to maintain or surpass critical mass.
It's a balancing act of quality and quantity. In terms of quantity...in the case of the Android platform (and less so, in terms of a hardware company, like Samsung) that critical mass target is a moving target. There comes a point where Apple knows it must compete with almost survival-like instinct to establish enough of a customer base or risk losing market share in one or many product lines.
But in general, I agree that Apple does not NEED to increase market share at the moment, other than specific demographics/geographies, like Spain.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Your point is flawed. Higher marketshare doesn't mean that a product will be better. If a company is continuing to lose money to obtain that market share then they will continue to cut even more corners to try to reduce their costs to obtain it. There is a reason why Apple is seen as the only PC manufacture who innovates. Dell, HP, Acer they, in fact, do innovate, but they innovate new ways to cut corners as they race to the bottom and in the process they have soiled their brands so much that Apple dominates all profitable portion of the PC market to such an extent that they can't compete. So, yes, so show me a company that knows how to create a profit on a product that people love and I'll show a company that knows how to add value to their products. There is a reason Apple, of all the CE companies, is able to create products that hold their value.
I thought he was talking about the OSes, not the machines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
For now. You are not really arguing the point. Do you think that us iOS is at 1% devs will be around? If not then market share matters.
What's odd - to me - is the hostility to market share increases by sone iOS owners, providing profits are maintained ( and why wouldn't they be?) I suppose they feel less special.
I think if Android had remained cohesive and controlled, then it might be a different story, comparable to the Mac/PC era. On the other hand it might have died a quick death.
As it is, though, with Android being forked to death, developers are getting more and more loath to develop for Android.
None of this is relevant to my point. You are talking about manufacturers profit not market share of a platform - like iOS , Windows, or Android.
As I said before Apple used to have the biggest profits in the PC world in 1992. A few years later they were broke with an aging OS. It took the purchase of Next, the integration of NEXT OS and most importantly the arrival of Jobs - effectively a reverse takeover which wont happen again. That's a one off.
The profits malarkey is a smoke screen.
iOS is a platform. Get them young or poor and you keep them old and rich. To get them young and poor a cheaper device is needed.
Apple knows this. If all they wanted was hardware profits they would forego the profits from services and software. That is reduce the 30% "Apple tax" or allow competitors to bypass In App Purchasing. They keep the cost of services high to subsidise a future cheap iPhone.
Word.
None of this is relevant to my point. You are talking about manufacturers profit not market share of a platform - like iOS , Windows, or Android.
As I said before Apple used to have the biggest profits in the PC world in 1992. A few years later they were broke with an aging OS. It took the purchase of Next, the integration of NEXT OS and most importantly the arrival of Jobs - effectively a reverse takeover which wont happen again. That's a one off.
The profits malarkey is a smoke screen.
iOS is a platform. Get them young or poor and you keep them old and rich. To get them young and poor a cheaper device is needed.
Apple knows this. If all they wanted was hardware profits they would forego the profits from services and software. That is reduce the 30% "Apple tax" or allow competitors to bypass In App Purchasing. They keep the cost of services high to subsidise a future cheap iPhone.
Word.
None of this is relevant to my point. You are talking about manufacturers profit not market share of a platform - like iOS , Windows, or Android.
As I said before Apple used to have the biggest profits in the PC world in 1992. A few years later they were broke with an aging OS. It took the purchase of Next, the integration of NEXT OS and most importantly the arrival of Jobs - effectively a reverse takeover which wont happen again. That's a one off.
The profits malarkey is a smoke screen.
iOS is a platform. Get them young or poor and you keep them old and rich. To get them young and poor a cheaper device is needed.
Apple knows this. If all they wanted was hardware profits they would forego the profits from services and software. That is reduce the 30% "Apple tax" or allow competitors to bypass In App Purchasing. They keep the cost of services high to subsidise a future cheap iPhone.
His comment didn't qualify any such allowances.
1) It's all relevant to your point that market share is more important than a company actually turning a profit.
2) So now it's an all or nothing model? If your goal is to sell a HW product then charging anything to support services to sell more HW means your business model is flawed?
3) Now it's an Apple tax to charge 30% for App Store sales? I guess I'm a little late realizing that you're just trolling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
His comment didn't qualify any such allowances.
"Why would a consumer care about profits. Market share guarantees developer interest." ~ asdasd
I suppose he could have been talking about the development of computers.
I guess it could be read as referring to only OS or SW but I'd expect someone who is specifically stating that market share v profit being vastly different between SW and HW to specifically state that otherwise I assume they are making a general point that traverses all areas of business.
3) The term "tax" is probably not as pejorative as you think. Nevertheless I reported your post as accusations of "trolling" is a form of well poisoning.
To return to the argument
1) Market share is far more important to this platform than Apples profit. Devs don't care about profit for Apple but themselves. Except for the trivial claim that were Apple to make a loss it would go out of business that is obviously the case.
2) Saying apples model is flawed is your own straw man. I didn't. If apple just wanted just a high margin hardware business case it could spur sales by reducing the Apple percentage, thus making apps cheaper or devs richer. For instance it could compete with the kindle fire by reducing the percentage on iBooks. That it is not doing that indicates it wants to see iOS as providing a long term service model. It's both hardware and software sales. Catch somebody with a cheap iPhone and it's profit for life.
Complete this statement:
Apple needs more market share because of __________
I think we've already shown that Apple is a hugely successful company in no danger of going out of business. Their developers are happy. Their customers are happy.
And all this while not being the #1 in market share. (worldwide)
So what is it about market share that you think is so important?
OK.... you say Apple should make cheaper devices to gain more market share. Like I asked earlier... what would be the result?
Look at Android. It has a ton of market share credited directly to multiple manufacturers and inexpensive devices.
So... besides the title of "market share leader" what are the actual benefits to Android having so much market share?
And... what are the disadvantages to Apple having less market share?
No, no, they need Android's marketshare so all their device "activations" can have a 1:1 ratio for web and app usage stats... oh, wait.
here are the stats country by country:
With numbers like that... Apple will never recover.
When do we call the time of death?
Oh wait... you CAN exist at #2
I recall that song... "We're number 2! We're number 2! Yaaaaay!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip
Complete this statement:
Apple needs more market share because of __________
I think we've already shown that Apple is a hugely successful company in no danger of going out of business. Their developers are happy. Their customers are happy.
And all this while not being the #1 in market share. (worldwide)
So what is it about market share that you think is so important?
OK.... you say Apple should make cheaper devices to gain more market share. Like I asked earlier... what would be the result?
Look at Android. It has a ton of market share credited directly to multiple manufacturers and inexpensive devices.
So... besides the title of "market share leader" what are the actual benefits to Android having so much market share?
And... what are the disadvantages to Apple having less market share?
The historical record has shown - and this is the third time I have said this - that if you sacrifice market share for short term profits you lose both. I am a bit tired of making the same argument, and getting the same question. I have already answered this question and here I go again.
Apple would have gone out of business if it hadn't had the smarts to buy out NEXT. It had 12 percent market share in 1992 but huge profits - possibly the biggest in the business - and that fell to 3 percent in 1998. It also lost profit. Profit will eventually follow market share in platform. In fact dont take my word on this, tkae Job's himself, who criticised Apple in that era for being run by salesmen, obsessed with profit.
I feel a bit like its groundhog day in here because I have already answered this. If you want, you can explain why this time is different ( who knows it might be but you would have to have an argument on that) but I, and history, have already answered the reason why we shouldn't be relaxed on declining, or static, market share.
If I were to argue against my own point - to give you some hints - I would say that Apple is dominant in the richer markets. Or it is doing well in the enterprise, So thats not like 1992.
However I think Apple will possibly never recover in Spain. I mean its pretty much non-existent in Spain. And I would be surprised if any devs in Spain were producing for iOS first. That would be madness. Apple may well, therefore, have permanently lost Spain.
So if Spain is Apple's future, then it will be in decline. However Spain probably is one of those countries where everything is pre=paid so a cheap phone might work.
I dont really get the counter arguments to cheaper phones. Even if margins fall overall profits can increase with higher volume. More importantly for a platform, if someone gets an iPhone and is locked in he is there for life. If he gets his iPhone at 20 then Apple is golden for decades, with all this stuff in the iCloud.
And thats the main reason for the iCloud, lockin. After all people are arguing here than Android users are more likely to defect. I agree. Thats true, for now. Until Google gets it's act together, and offers as much as the iTunes ecosystem.
Whats happening now is a scramble for life long customers. To win that Apple needs cheap phones, and sooner rather than later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
If I were to argue against my own point - to give you some hints - I would say that Apple is dominant in the richer markets. Or it is doing well in the enterprise, So thats not like 1992.
However I think Apple will possibly never recover in Spain. I mean its pretty much non-existent in Spain. And I would be surprised if any devs in Spain were producing for iOS first. That would be madness. Apple may well, therefore, have permanently lost Spain.
So if Spain is Apple's future, then it will be in decline. However Spain probably is one of those countries where everything is pre=paid so a cheap phone might work.
I dont really get the counter arguments to cheaper phones. Even if margins fall overall profits can increase with higher volume. More importantly for a platform, if someone gets an iPhone and is locked in he is there for life. If he gets his iPhone at 20 then Apple is golden for decades, with all this stuff in the iCloud.
And thats the main reason for the iCloud, lockin. After all people are arguing here than Android users are more likely to defect. I agree. Thats true, for now. Until Google gets it's act together, and offers as much as the iTunes ecosystem.
Whats happening now is a scramble for life long customers. To win that Apple needs cheap phones, and sooner rather than later.
Spain is probably the best argument in your defense. If you were able to find out more stats on developer specifics it could prove hands down that falling market share will eventually lead to decreased development, regardless of the margins being made.
Originally Posted by asdasd
However I think Apple will possibly never recover in Spain. I mean its pretty much non-existent in Spain.
Just their phone operating system has twice the marketshare of Apple worldwide in 2003. PRETTY sure you can't say this and mean it.
OK... with the exception of Spain... Apple is in 2nd place with 20%+ in the other countries.
The 3rd place is single digits.
If you're saying Apple is in trouble... what can you say about those other guys?
I'm just having a hard time believing Apple is in trouble for not selling enough phones compared to the other guys... but they're still making billions upon billions of dollars.
The difference between Apple in the 1990s and Apple today is roughly 120 billion dollars. Apple doesn't need a bailout anymore... nor are they in danger of going out of business. History is a bit different this time around.
You may say "Oh noes... the iPhone is losing to Android the same way the Mac lost to Windows..."
But really... is there any comparison?
Apple doesn't make "cheap" products. It's not in their DNA. Sure, they could move up a couple notches on the market share chart... but I'm saying that chart is a false idol.
Yes... Android has a ton of market share. And that is spread out over a dozen manufacturers and hundreds of phones. Yippee.
The fact that Apple, a single company, can have 20%-30% is actually remarkable. And they have insane profits... developers love the platform... and so do customers. What's the problem again?
If Android's success is the result of cheap phones... how are those manufacturers doing? Is it all roses?
I've showed you this chart before... projected worldwide smartphone sales by OEM in 2012:
Smartphones
28% Samsung
20% Apple
5% Nokia
5% HTC
5% RIM
Only 2 of the companies in the top 5 are selling Android devices... Samsung and HTC. That means the bulk of Android phones are coming from even smaller companies.
And those phones are likely cheap and are sold to people who don't have a lot of money. And who aren't gonna spend money on apps, music or a platform in general.
So... is that the market Apple should be chasing?
I don't think so!
"Android is winning" is your battle cry... but I don't believe in it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip
Complete this statement:
Apple needs more market share because of __________
I think we've already shown that Apple is a hugely successful company in no danger of going out of business. Their developers are happy. Their customers are happy.
And all this while not being the #1 in market share. (worldwide)
...because of the need to maintain or surpass critical mass.
It's a balancing act of quality and quantity. In terms of quantity...in the case of the Android platform (and less so, in terms of a hardware company, like Samsung) that critical mass target is a moving target. There comes a point where Apple knows it must compete with almost survival-like instinct to establish enough of a customer base or risk losing market share in one or many product lines.
But in general, I agree that Apple does not NEED to increase market share at the moment, other than specific demographics/geographies, like Spain.