Still, it would be nice to put the declines of other companies into perspective in that regard. Who was hurt most by Apple and Android and how sharply were they hurt.
It should not be that difficult to imagine if you assume the other smartphones all have pretty smooth curves.
Where the hell are all these android phones, I only know 3 people with an Android and 1 of them has just replaced his S3 with a 4S. Everyone else owns an iPhone except for 1 mug with a windows phone but he'll be back.
We need a graph of people who extolled the virtues of Android's open system and cheap customisable phones to then realise that it's a plastic piece of s*** that does a load of stuff that you simply don't ever use. Compare that against people who had an iPhone and was lured away because of specs, screen size and/or a defect in their brain.
I bet more defected iPhone users return to ownership than the other way around.
Where the hell are all these android phones, I only know 3 people with an Android and 1 of them has just replaced his S3 with a 4S. Everyone else owns an iPhone except for 1 mug with a windows phone but he'll be back.
We need a graph of people who extolled the virtues of Android's open system and cheap customisable phones to then realise that it's a plastic piece of s*** that does a load of stuff that you simply don't ever use. Compare that against people who had an iPhone and was lured away because of specs, screen size and/or a defect in their brain.
I bet more defected iPhone users return to ownership than the other way around.
Get out more into the real world. Maybe you'll meet more than 3 people.
Looks to me like what jragosta said isn't right, then. Before the iPhone and Android, companies DID swing up and down regularly. iOS and Android have simply taken over those roles (and chart behavior).
I like this post because it reverses the trend as of late to post information about competitors that isn't disparaging.
And it's actually pretty subtle about what it says, so that's nice.
And so, uh, there's… not gonna be any sort of, uh… inquiry into this, is there?
So who's lying? The telecom employees who said they don't get anything for pushing Android or this guy who says they do?
Well, it's not just this guy, but it's also not just Google--Samsung's budget says they do this on a big scale: they spend more on salesperson incentives alone than the entire marketing budget of Apple plus Coca-Cola combined! Which is Android's benefit, but isn't coming from Google's pockets (and may in the end bite Google as Samsung's power grows).
This doesn't mean every person in every store gets paid an incentive by Samsung. Just that it happens on a large scale.
(As for incentives to the carriers themselves, I guess simply offering a discount on the handsets counts. We've certainly heard the Apple doesn't give iPhones to carriers on the cheap.)
I read awhile back that Google gives the carriers a tiny kickback from the ad revenue earned on Android phones. While the amount was pretty small at the time, under $10 million, its more than enough to cover Verizon/AT&T CEOs and VPs bonus checks.
Mobiles Phone stores' salemen are like used car salesmen, except they are teenagers, with even lower ethical standards.
I say that as some who's good friend managed a Verizon store for 5 years, from the stories he told me.
I'd be interested if you (or anyone) could provide a link or something with substance to that incentive claim. Either way I'd bet the 'incentive' amount is far less than Apple's strategy of providing a substantial disincentive to carriers- 'if you sell one of my iPhones to a customer- you owe me $300' Carriers make up for the losses they take selling iPhones over the long run by the locked in contracts. Since those are a fixed price (Android users pay the same monthly rates as iPhone users) it is actually a tremendous advantage for Apple (not in number of sales, but in profit margins). Essentially Android users who pay high monthly rates to help carriers offset iPhone subsidies are really helping Apple users buy their expensive phones.
Most carriers last quarter that sold 'record numbers' of iPhones last quarter posted record profit losses because of it (which is okay, they'll make it up over the next few years with a contract). With the android phones they make the same contract profits but don't have to eat the initial kick in the teeth losses. If you're a carrier of course you are going to push your team to sell phones that you make more money on. My guess would be there is an incentive to the salespeople, but it comes from the carriers themselves. I believe Google actually provides a disincentive themselves and charges carriers to sell their phones rather than giving them money- its just compared to Apple's disincentive, Google's disincentive looks comparitvely much better.
Looks to me like what jragosta said isn't right, then. Before the iPhone and Android, companies DID swing up and down regularly. iOS and Android have simply taken over those roles (and chart behavior).
Note that's Apple's massive drop was because they had completely stopped producing the original iPhone in the 4th quarter. They only sold 270k units as they were gearing up production of the iPhone 3G. We've continued to see small drops when the device is rumoured to be replaced by a new iPhone, which is interesting because you just don't get the same thing with this mobile OS comparison to Android because there are new Android models every month. it's all based around when the iPhone is released and is reaching EOL, which is just another in a long list of Apple having control of the market.
Also, it should be noted that the emergence of the iPhone made the entire smartphone market come alive which included adding life to the stagnant incumbent's sales. It was short lived but it happened for no reason than the iPhone made the category worthwhile for the average person to look into.
Finally, as mstone notes that graph for the US market it should be noted that Android's gain was mostly against Symbian in the feature phone category, not against the proper smartphone.
Where the hell are all these android phones, I only know 3 people with an Android and 1 of them has just replaced his S3 with a 4S. Everyone else owns an iPhone except for 1 mug with a windows phone but he'll be back.
We need a graph of people who extolled the virtues of Android's open system and cheap customisable phones to then realise that it's a plastic piece of s*** that does a load of stuff that you simply don't ever use. Compare that against people who had an iPhone and was lured away because of specs, screen size and/or a defect in their brain.
I bet more defected iPhone users return to ownership than the other way around.
There are plenty of places on Earth where you can buy an Android phone, unlocked, for $160. That's where Android gets most of its colossal market share. You might not see them... but they're out there.
Take India and China for example. Two countries with over a billion people each... and the iPhone there costs 3 to 4 times more than an Android phone.
And people wonder why Android has 70% worldwide smartphone market share... and Apple only has 20%
I'm from the United States... and I, too, see iPhones everywhere. But that's not the case across the globe.
Looks to me like what jragosta said isn't right, then. Before the iPhone and Android, companies DID swing up and down regularly. iOS and Android have simply taken over those roles (and chart behavior).
Look at the scale. They adjusted the scale to make it look impressive, but the swings were under 2% - other than Apple's. And Apple's swing was caused by exactly the same thing I cited above - they were changing from one phone to another and people stopped buying before the switch and bought in mass after the new ones came out.
It supports what I said - the market share swings are fairly steady and slow except when Apple does a product changeover.
Looks to me like what jragosta said isn't right, then. Before the iPhone and Android, companies DID swing up and down regularly. iOS and Android have simply taken over those roles (and chart behavior).
After examining this chart in more detail, it seems to indicate that Nokia must have had around 80% of the smartphone market prior to the release of iPhone since Win and BB together only account for roughly 20%. Also they were both still on the rise as iPhone came to market so it looks like initially iPhone took market share mostly from Nokia.
I read awhile back that Google gives the carriers a tiny kickback from the ad revenue earned on Android phones. While the amount was pretty small at the time, under $10 million, its more than enough to cover Verizon/AT
I'd be interested if you (or anyone) could provide a link or something with substance to that incentive claim. Either way I'd bet the 'incentive' amount is far less than Apple's strategy of providing a substantial disincentive to carriers- 'if you sell one of my iPhones to a customer- you owe me $300' Carriers make up for the losses they take selling iPhones over the long run by the locked in contracts. Since those are a fixed price (Android users pay the same monthly rates as iPhone users) it is actually a tremendous advantage for Apple (not in number of sales, but in profit margins). Essentially Android users who pay high monthly rates to help carriers offset iPhone subsidies are really helping Apple users buy their expensive phones.
Most carriers last quarter that sold 'record numbers' of iPhones last quarter posted record profit losses because of it (which is okay, they'll make it up over the next few years with a contract). With the android phones they make the same contract profits but don't have to eat the initial kick in the teeth losses. If you're a carrier of course you are going to push your team to sell phones that you make more money on. My guess would be there is an incentive to the salespeople, but it comes from the carriers themselves. I believe Google actually provides a disincentive themselves and charges carriers to sell their phones rather than giving them money- its just compared to Apple's disincentive, Google's disincentive looks comparitvely much better.
I am not sure why you think the carrier cost from an iPhone 5 is substantially higher than the S3.
This chart is very indicative of the war between iOS and Android. The Android based smartphones inaugurated in 2009/4. It quickly overtook iPhone in market share in 2010/1. So in terms of market share iPhone was never a competitor to Android smartphones.
I think there are two reasons. First, there are huge number of Microsoft Windows PC users, they are historically dislike whatever Apple made. Second, there are huge number of Microsoft Windows PC users, they dislike Apple because its products are expensive.
Another interesting things you can see from the graph is Blackberry phone was not significantly affected by iPhone. Its market share started to decline after the introduction of Android phones. So Blackberry phones lost market share to Android phones. I will say the most significant composition of present Android smartphones come from Blackberry users. So it is ironic and stupid that Blackberry chief will choose to attack iPhone instead.
I am not sure why you think the carrier cost from an iPhone 5 is substantially higher than the S3.
I believe the carriers are paying $100 more in subsidy on the iPhone than on top end Androids. Perhaps they make more money because iPhone users pay for a more expensive plan, but the iPhone's subsidy cost to the carrier is indeed higher.
This chart is very indicative of the war between iOS and Android. The Android based smartphones inaugurated in 2009/4. It quickly overtook iPhone in market share in 2010/1. So in terms of market share iPhone was never a competitor to Android smartphones.
I think there are two reasons. First, there are huge number of Microsoft Windows PC users, they are historically dislike whatever Apple made. Second, there are huge number of Microsoft Windows PC users, they dislike Apple because its products are expensive.
Another interesting things you can see from the graph is Blackberry phone was not significantly affected by iPhone. Its market share started to decline after the introduction of Android phones. So Blackberry phones lost market share to Android phones. I will say the most significant composition of present Android smartphones come from Blackberry users. So it is ironic that Blackberry chief will choose to attack iPhone instead.
There have never been as many BBs as there are iPhones or Androids. So it is impossible for past BB users to make up a significant portion of any competitor's market share.
I'd be interested if you (or anyone) could provide a link or something with substance to that incentive claim. Either way I'd bet the 'incentive' amount is far less than Apple's strategy of providing a substantial disincentive to carriers- 'if you sell one of my iPhones to a customer- you owe me $300' Carriers make up for the losses they take selling iPhones over the long run by the locked in contracts. Since those are a fixed price (Android users pay the same monthly rates as iPhone users) it is actually a tremendous advantage for Apple (not in number of sales, but in profit margins). Essentially Android users who pay high monthly rates to help carriers offset iPhone subsidies are really helping Apple users buy their expensive phones.
Most carriers last quarter that sold 'record numbers' of iPhones last quarter posted record profit losses because of it (which is okay, they'll make it up over the next few years with a contract). With the android phones they make the same contract profits but don't have to eat the initial kick in the teeth losses. If you're a carrier of course you are going to push your team to sell phones that you make more money on. My guess would be there is an incentive to the salespeople, but it comes from the carriers themselves. I believe Google actually provides a disincentive themselves and charges carriers to sell their phones rather than giving them money- its just compared to Apple's disincentive, Google's disincentive looks comparitvely much better.
It depends on what you mean by initial kick. But I do believe carriers are paying upfront subsidies for some Android phones, just not as much as they do for the iPhone. Furthermore, Apple dictates iPhone pricing whereas there is a process of negotiation with other phone makers (or there used to be), with the carriers dominating the negotiations.
Why the discrepancy? Why is Blackberry 50% in one chart and in the teens in the other? Also, one chart shows Windows Mobile growing in 07-08 and the other shows it shrinking. Don't you think it would be helpful to label the charts so we know what's going on?
Comments
I want to see this chart updated once Apple releases unique hardware, fixes to must have apps (Maps/Siri) and updated UI. [UI update that is not drastic, but polished while adding a few user refinements such as more apps available to the lock screen like the camera is as discussed on a previous thread. http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/156523/blackberry-ceo-calls-apples-iphone-user-interface-outdated/40]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Still, it would be nice to put the declines of other companies into perspective in that regard. Who was hurt most by Apple and Android and how sharply were they hurt.
It should not be that difficult to imagine if you assume the other smartphones all have pretty smooth curves.
Originally Posted by mstone
It should not be that difficult to imagine if you assume the other smartphones all have pretty smooth curves.
See, that's the thing. Can we assume that?
Where the hell are all these android phones, I only know 3 people with an Android and 1 of them has just replaced his S3 with a 4S. Everyone else owns an iPhone except for 1 mug with a windows phone but he'll be back.
We need a graph of people who extolled the virtues of Android's open system and cheap customisable phones to then realise that it's a plastic piece of s*** that does a load of stuff that you simply don't ever use. Compare that against people who had an iPhone and was lured away because of specs, screen size and/or a defect in their brain.
I bet more defected iPhone users return to ownership than the other way around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by mstone
It should not be that difficult to imagine if you assume the other smartphones all have pretty smooth curves.
See, that's the thing. Can we assume that?
This one is US so Nokia is not very much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution
Where the hell are all these android phones, I only know 3 people with an Android and 1 of them has just replaced his S3 with a 4S. Everyone else owns an iPhone except for 1 mug with a windows phone but he'll be back.
We need a graph of people who extolled the virtues of Android's open system and cheap customisable phones to then realise that it's a plastic piece of s*** that does a load of stuff that you simply don't ever use. Compare that against people who had an iPhone and was lured away because of specs, screen size and/or a defect in their brain.
I bet more defected iPhone users return to ownership than the other way around.
Get out more into the real world. Maybe you'll meet more than 3 people.
Originally Posted by mstone
This one is US so Nokia is not very much.
Looks to me like what jragosta said isn't right, then. Before the iPhone and Android, companies DID swing up and down regularly. iOS and Android have simply taken over those roles (and chart behavior).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I like this post because it reverses the trend as of late to post information about competitors that isn't disparaging.
And it's actually pretty subtle about what it says, so that's nice.
And so, uh, there's… not gonna be any sort of, uh… inquiry into this, is there?
So who's lying? The telecom employees who said they don't get anything for pushing Android or this guy who says they do?
Well, it's not just this guy, but it's also not just Google--Samsung's budget says they do this on a big scale: they spend more on salesperson incentives alone than the entire marketing budget of Apple plus Coca-Cola combined! Which is Android's benefit, but isn't coming from Google's pockets (and may in the end bite Google as Samsung's power grows).
http://www.asymco.com/2012/11/29/the-cost-of-selling-galaxies/
This doesn't mean every person in every store gets paid an incentive by Samsung. Just that it happens on a large scale.
(As for incentives to the carriers themselves, I guess simply offering a discount on the handsets counts. We've certainly heard the Apple doesn't give iPhones to carriers on the cheap.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower
I read awhile back that Google gives the carriers a tiny kickback from the ad revenue earned on Android phones. While the amount was pretty small at the time, under $10 million, its more than enough to cover Verizon/AT&T CEOs and VPs bonus checks.
Mobiles Phone stores' salemen are like used car salesmen, except they are teenagers, with even lower ethical standards.
I say that as some who's good friend managed a Verizon store for 5 years, from the stories he told me.
I'd be interested if you (or anyone) could provide a link or something with substance to that incentive claim. Either way I'd bet the 'incentive' amount is far less than Apple's strategy of providing a substantial disincentive to carriers- 'if you sell one of my iPhones to a customer- you owe me $300' Carriers make up for the losses they take selling iPhones over the long run by the locked in contracts. Since those are a fixed price (Android users pay the same monthly rates as iPhone users) it is actually a tremendous advantage for Apple (not in number of sales, but in profit margins). Essentially Android users who pay high monthly rates to help carriers offset iPhone subsidies are really helping Apple users buy their expensive phones.
Most carriers last quarter that sold 'record numbers' of iPhones last quarter posted record profit losses because of it (which is okay, they'll make it up over the next few years with a contract). With the android phones they make the same contract profits but don't have to eat the initial kick in the teeth losses. If you're a carrier of course you are going to push your team to sell phones that you make more money on. My guess would be there is an incentive to the salespeople, but it comes from the carriers themselves. I believe Google actually provides a disincentive themselves and charges carriers to sell their phones rather than giving them money- its just compared to Apple's disincentive, Google's disincentive looks comparitvely much better.
Note that's Apple's massive drop was because they had completely stopped producing the original iPhone in the 4th quarter. They only sold 270k units as they were gearing up production of the iPhone 3G. We've continued to see small drops when the device is rumoured to be replaced by a new iPhone, which is interesting because you just don't get the same thing with this mobile OS comparison to Android because there are new Android models every month. it's all based around when the iPhone is released and is reaching EOL, which is just another in a long list of Apple having control of the market.
Also, it should be noted that the emergence of the iPhone made the entire smartphone market come alive which included adding life to the stagnant incumbent's sales. It was short lived but it happened for no reason than the iPhone made the category worthwhile for the average person to look into.
Finally, as mstone notes that graph for the US market it should be noted that Android's gain was mostly against Symbian in the feature phone category, not against the proper smartphone.
There are plenty of places on Earth where you can buy an Android phone, unlocked, for $160. That's where Android gets most of its colossal market share. You might not see them... but they're out there.
Take India and China for example. Two countries with over a billion people each... and the iPhone there costs 3 to 4 times more than an Android phone.
And people wonder why Android has 70% worldwide smartphone market share... and Apple only has 20%
I'm from the United States... and I, too, see iPhones everywhere. But that's not the case across the globe.
Look at the scale. They adjusted the scale to make it look impressive, but the swings were under 2% - other than Apple's. And Apple's swing was caused by exactly the same thing I cited above - they were changing from one phone to another and people stopped buying before the switch and bought in mass after the new ones came out.
It supports what I said - the market share swings are fairly steady and slow except when Apple does a product changeover.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by mstone
Looks to me like what jragosta said isn't right, then. Before the iPhone and Android, companies DID swing up and down regularly. iOS and Android have simply taken over those roles (and chart behavior).
After examining this chart in more detail, it seems to indicate that Nokia must have had around 80% of the smartphone market prior to the release of iPhone since Win and BB together only account for roughly 20%. Also they were both still on the rise as iPhone came to market so it looks like initially iPhone took market share mostly from Nokia.
I am not sure why you think the carrier cost from an iPhone 5 is substantially higher than the S3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
This one is US so Nokia is not very much.
This chart is very indicative of the war between iOS and Android. The Android based smartphones inaugurated in 2009/4. It quickly overtook iPhone in market share in 2010/1. So in terms of market share iPhone was never a competitor to Android smartphones.
I think there are two reasons. First, there are huge number of Microsoft Windows PC users, they are historically dislike whatever Apple made. Second, there are huge number of Microsoft Windows PC users, they dislike Apple because its products are expensive.
Another interesting things you can see from the graph is Blackberry phone was not significantly affected by iPhone. Its market share started to decline after the introduction of Android phones. So Blackberry phones lost market share to Android phones. I will say the most significant composition of present Android smartphones come from Blackberry users. So it is ironic and stupid that Blackberry chief will choose to attack iPhone instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel
I am not sure why you think the carrier cost from an iPhone 5 is substantially higher than the S3.
I believe the carriers are paying $100 more in subsidy on the iPhone than on top end Androids. Perhaps they make more money because iPhone users pay for a more expensive plan, but the iPhone's subsidy cost to the carrier is indeed higher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan
This chart is very indicative of the war between iOS and Android. The Android based smartphones inaugurated in 2009/4. It quickly overtook iPhone in market share in 2010/1. So in terms of market share iPhone was never a competitor to Android smartphones.
I think there are two reasons. First, there are huge number of Microsoft Windows PC users, they are historically dislike whatever Apple made. Second, there are huge number of Microsoft Windows PC users, they dislike Apple because its products are expensive.
Another interesting things you can see from the graph is Blackberry phone was not significantly affected by iPhone. Its market share started to decline after the introduction of Android phones. So Blackberry phones lost market share to Android phones. I will say the most significant composition of present Android smartphones come from Blackberry users. So it is ironic that Blackberry chief will choose to attack iPhone instead.
There have never been as many BBs as there are iPhones or Androids. So it is impossible for past BB users to make up a significant portion of any competitor's market share.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood
I'd be interested if you (or anyone) could provide a link or something with substance to that incentive claim. Either way I'd bet the 'incentive' amount is far less than Apple's strategy of providing a substantial disincentive to carriers- 'if you sell one of my iPhones to a customer- you owe me $300' Carriers make up for the losses they take selling iPhones over the long run by the locked in contracts. Since those are a fixed price (Android users pay the same monthly rates as iPhone users) it is actually a tremendous advantage for Apple (not in number of sales, but in profit margins). Essentially Android users who pay high monthly rates to help carriers offset iPhone subsidies are really helping Apple users buy their expensive phones.
Most carriers last quarter that sold 'record numbers' of iPhones last quarter posted record profit losses because of it (which is okay, they'll make it up over the next few years with a contract). With the android phones they make the same contract profits but don't have to eat the initial kick in the teeth losses. If you're a carrier of course you are going to push your team to sell phones that you make more money on. My guess would be there is an incentive to the salespeople, but it comes from the carriers themselves. I believe Google actually provides a disincentive themselves and charges carriers to sell their phones rather than giving them money- its just compared to Apple's disincentive, Google's disincentive looks comparitvely much better.
It depends on what you mean by initial kick. But I do believe carriers are paying upfront subsidies for some Android phones, just not as much as they do for the iPhone. Furthermore, Apple dictates iPhone pricing whereas there is a process of negotiation with other phone makers (or there used to be), with the carriers dominating the negotiations.
Why the discrepancy? Why is Blackberry 50% in one chart and in the teens in the other? Also, one chart shows Windows Mobile growing in 07-08 and the other shows it shrinking. Don't you think it would be helpful to label the charts so we know what's going on?