I see both good and bad in these numbers for Apple.
The good news is they are doing very well at maintaining a high ASP while still growing. With the 5S in particular they've managed to slightly grow ASP from Q2 to Q3 this year, in a market that is clearly seeing pricing drops. This is impressive.
The bad news is obviously they are losing share which may contribute to them pricing lower in the future. The other thing I see that no one seems to have commented on is the growth of Windows. I don't think too many people expected this type of growth from Windows. It will be interesting to see how the industry as a whole reacts to this, including Apple. Windows seem to be showing strength in Europe (Italy in particular for some reason) and the US, but not in Asia and Latin America.
The one area I criticize Apple for is not getting into the phablet/large screen market sooner. I know many of you feel differently, but the data is compelling, this is where much of the growth in the high end of the market is.
It appears you’ve forgotten to take into account Apple’s differed revenue model. Apple discloses units, revenue and differed revenue. None of it’s competitors, as far as I know, use a differed revenue model.
It appears from the article you are using the total sales revenue for all phones and subtracting Apple’s realized revenue, without including their differed revenue for this year, to scry the actual number of Android phones sold. A more accurate picture would be to also subtract Apple’s differed revenue as well as realized earnings from Android global earnings. I'm guessing this would make things look even more dire for high end Android.
Smartphones, even stripped down ones, are one of the most empowering devices created. Watching emerging countries basically skip the infrastructure for wired communications and jump straight to mobile is astounding.
Simply because Apple chooses not to go after the low and mid-end doesn't make it 'junk', nor does it diminish the importance of these phones. Millions of people are going straight from literally typewriters to basic Android handsets through which they can check email and browse the internet.
Unfortunately most developed nations, especially Americans, tend to have such a self-centric view of the world.
In 2 years when the basic Android handset is powerful enough to do pretty much everything for the student in the sub-Sahara or SE Asia, it will be a fantastic thing.
Also - the competition among the Android OEMs at the high end is a good thing for the consumer in driving down prices. 32GB is becoming the norm at the same price point as 16GB last year. Most phones get a price cut after a quarter b/c a new Android flagship is coming out. It's great for those consumers.
I know its your job to say that Android midrange phones deliver 'a poor experience'- but they really are quite good.
Almost every day since he switched from his iPhone 4S earlier this year, I've had to listen to my manager complain about something with his S4, and says he absolutely "hates" it. He absolutely dreads having to open up his photo album, it takes minutes. Waiting for that certainly is an awesome experience!
This article is very correct but if this applies in the stock market , I think all of other stocks need to drop as they only rises coz of cheap and QE 3.
If you are primarily an investor, and your primary interest in Apple is not using their products but rather buying their shares in the hopes that you can sell them for more money at a later date- all those blogs and articles probably should concern you, and just take all of your 'Apple passion' out of the argument. Apple's current valuation is based on them selling an insane amount of phones at profit margins much higher than other competitors in the market. Continuing to do as well as they are currently doing will not drive their stock price up- it will generally mean they are correctly valued and the stock price will remain relatively flat. In order for them to increase their valuation Apple will either need to sell substantially more phones at their current margins, or sell the same number of phones for higher margins. If they start selling few phones, or sell a similar number of phones at lower margins- their valuation goes down.
The assumption you've made is that the current valuation is commensurate with Apple's fundamentals, which it isn't. The current valuation assumes that Apple is basically through growing its earnings. It's a fair bet that Apple's earnings and revenue are both going to be increasing over the present fiscal year, and by a quite respectable amount. A quite doable 20% increase would net Apple $60 billion this fiscal year. If half of that were spent on buybacks and half on dividends, with only 900 million shares outstanding now and possibly only 850 million by the end of the fiscal year, then the dividend would amount to (30/.85=) $35 per share in dividends. At today's price of $520/share, that's almost a 7% dividend.
Frankly, the market would have to be insane to allow a 7% dividend. Ergo, the price of the stock would have to basically double to keep the dividend down to a sane 3.5% level.
And if Apple grows earnings over 20%? It boggles the mind....
BTW, notice the long term effect of buying back shares: Dividends per share explode. That's why Apple's present buyback program is sheer genius.
It sounds like you're predicting a dearth of future innovation. Why would you assume that?
You don't need to make a prediction for something that's already happened!
Smartphone technology has already reached the point where a basic entry level device is 'good enough' at performing day to day tasks for most users.It took PCs decades to reach that point.The bandwagon is already over for smartphones, move on. I'm sure there will be something else for first world consumers to fixate on before long.
Growing the accessibility of reasonably functioning 'good enough' smartphones to an increasingly wider market at ever shrinking price points is a good thing, why is it so difficult for so many people here see that?
A) Samsung Electronics overall nets less than Apple. Samsung Mobile sells more phones and earns less than Apple.
Saying "Apple's powerful ecosystem in few countries like the US" is flatly ignorant. Apple has movies for sale and rent everywhere from Anguilla to Zimbabwe. Apps are everywhere. Music is nearly everywhere. Some content like TV has limited markets, but far better than any other global source. Third party content is also more available to iOS than any other platform. http://support.apple.com/kb/TS3599
C) You neglect to mention that Samsung has far wider distribution than Apple, and its recent success comes largely from violating IP worldwide. That’s now drawing to a close. It is failing with most of its new ventures, from Smart TV to Gear watches. Tizen is a mess, Android is a commodity business, and it will increasing need to pay Microsoft and other phone makers for IP licenses, on top of having razor thin profit margins and little prospects for turning that around. It’s spending unsustainable amounts on advertising and seeing limited benefits. Samsung faces competitors who are virtually identical to it. If Apple faces dire threats from commoditization, what future does Samsung have, given that it has little original anything, and that everything it has can be duped by LG or cloned by Lenovo and the masses of Chinese firms who excel at making cheap junk slightly cheaper? Samsung has no reputation for quality, or design, or even good software.
D) Virtually all of your facts are completely backward. Makes one wonder why you share your uninformed opinions.
A) I'm under the impression that you are wrong. Last time I checked, Samsung electronics had more profit than Apple. Now, I can't remember if what was being compared was samsung's operational profit Vs Apple's net profit, I know similar mistakes were made in almost every news site, but the fact is that even if Samsung didn't earn more than Apple this last quarter, the difference was almost 0. Meanwhile, Samsung's profits are growing in the double digits while Apple, for various reasons, is mostly flat or going slightly down.
I would like that you would address this particular A) point, because it can by itself show how articles like this make no sense. Samsung alone makes more money from Apple or very close. What matters is $, so Samsung has a business model that is at least equal to Apple. Earning 2$ for potato is better than earning 1$ for potato, but if you can sell 3 and earn 1$ each instead of selling 1 and earn 2$... Oh well, it is a better practice.
You are wrong again. Is this on purpose? I can have Google Radio right now if I want to. Can I have Apple's Radio? No. What about Apple's go back to school promotions? No. What about most movies and TV shows? No. And, most of all, iPhones are rare in most countries. That makes services like iMessage and FaceTime virtually useless for most people. Hangouts is useless too, but you see my point:
Ecosystem-wise, Apple's offers little more (or nothing more) than Android in most countries. If you are a smartphone buyer and have limited $ to spend (because you don't have more or do not want to pay more), is the iPhone worth it? Here, the market has spoken. But My opinion is that Apple needs time:
Bigger retail presence;
Services rollout worldwide;
One ecosystem worldwide (some though battles ahead...);
More market presence that in turn will make services like iMessage more desirable.
C) About distribution: That's Apple's problem, not yours, mine or Samsung's. I agree with the rest of your point of view, but the fact is point A) again. Samsung is setting itself to totally pass Apple in net profit next year, so their strategy is paying off and their margins are healthy. Besides, their galaxy line has amazing brand power, only behind the iphone.
D) All of this makes me believe my facts are fine. And again, what is your deal with "junk" here, "worthless" there and now "why do you share..." as "go away".
Are you paid to be wrong or ignorant about the market? AI needs someone that lives outside the US or is at least interested to learn about the market and worldwide situation.
What is so darn important about platform market share? Most of the companies selling Android devices are barely making anything from all that huge amount of market share although there must be some companies selling decent products that consumers are happy to be using. Should it matter to anyone if Casio is selling more watches than, say, Movado, Tag Heuer or Rolex?
Spot on.
You have to remember though that most of these journalists, like most politicians and press think that the overriding metric for life is Gross Domestic Product (GDP). If that's going up then the economy is growing (whatever that implies) and all is well with the world, our lives are better and have more meaning and satisfaction. GDP growth is the target of (mainstream) politics and economists and market share growth is the equivalent target of analysts and short sighted companies.
It's no surprise that they find difficulty in seeing what's really important and what the implications are.
I'd love to see some research into how people are actually using phones like the Samsung Galaxy Y. I'm guessing that no-one here owns one and that DED has no data to back up his claim that they're only being used as basic camera-phones.
Just because it's not a powerful smartphone doesn't mean that it's not being used as a smartphone. If it's a big seller in China, you can bet that local app developers are targeting it. The same goes with India. Its processing power is about on par with the iPhone 3GS and we all agree that the 3GS is a smartphone, right?
You have to remember though that most of these journalists, like most politicians and press think that the overriding metric for life is Gross Domestic Product (GDP). If that's going up then the economy is growing (whatever that implies) and all is well with the world, our lives are better and have more meaning and satisfaction. GDP growth is the target of (mainstream) politics and economists and market share growth is the equivalent target of analysts and short sighted companies.
It's no surprise that they find difficulty in seeing what's really important and what the implications are.
And that, brother, is the problem with the world today. Continual GDP growth is as impossible as perpetual motion but the global corporations and politicians keep telling us that it's the only financial model worth following.
Regarding "junk" phones in China, that no-one uses:
"The Xiaomi Mi3 is a very slim 8.1mm handset that features a 5-inch 1080p display and the latest Nvidia Tegra 4 chip with amazing graphics capabilities and 2GB of RAM. What’s most impressive, though, is its price. The Xiaomi Mi 3 price is set at 1999 yuan ($327) off contract."
That's a just announced, top-end device, from a manufacturer in China that has users more active in app usage than Apple's (and the company aims to make money from selling them things via the phone, Amazon Kindle HD style).
Basically equal or better than the latest, best Android phones you can buy anywhere in the world. They sell them in batches and 100,000 of them go in about 90 seconds.
Comments
I see both good and bad in these numbers for Apple.
The good news is they are doing very well at maintaining a high ASP while still growing. With the 5S in particular they've managed to slightly grow ASP from Q2 to Q3 this year, in a market that is clearly seeing pricing drops. This is impressive.
The bad news is obviously they are losing share which may contribute to them pricing lower in the future. The other thing I see that no one seems to have commented on is the growth of Windows. I don't think too many people expected this type of growth from Windows. It will be interesting to see how the industry as a whole reacts to this, including Apple. Windows seem to be showing strength in Europe (Italy in particular for some reason) and the US, but not in Asia and Latin America.
The one area I criticize Apple for is not getting into the phablet/large screen market sooner. I know many of you feel differently, but the data is compelling, this is where much of the growth in the high end of the market is.
It appears you’ve forgotten to take into account Apple’s differed revenue model. Apple discloses units, revenue and differed revenue. None of it’s competitors, as far as I know, use a differed revenue model.
It appears from the article you are using the total sales revenue for all phones and subtracting Apple’s realized revenue, without including their differed revenue for this year, to scry the actual number of Android phones sold. A more accurate picture would be to also subtract Apple’s differed revenue as well as realized earnings from Android global earnings. I'm guessing this would make things look even more dire for high end Android.
... but I could be wrong.
Smartphones, even stripped down ones, are one of the most empowering devices created. Watching emerging countries basically skip the infrastructure for wired communications and jump straight to mobile is astounding.
Simply because Apple chooses not to go after the low and mid-end doesn't make it 'junk', nor does it diminish the importance of these phones. Millions of people are going straight from literally typewriters to basic Android handsets through which they can check email and browse the internet.
Unfortunately most developed nations, especially Americans, tend to have such a self-centric view of the world.
In 2 years when the basic Android handset is powerful enough to do pretty much everything for the student in the sub-Sahara or SE Asia, it will be a fantastic thing.
Also - the competition among the Android OEMs at the high end is a good thing for the consumer in driving down prices. 32GB is becoming the norm at the same price point as 16GB last year. Most phones get a price cut after a quarter b/c a new Android flagship is coming out. It's great for those consumers.
Apple released Iphone6 image.Did you see it?If not see here http://imgdino.com/viewer.php?file=68880560336892107577.jpg
Quit sending links to obscene adult related sites. Take your trash somewhere else!
I know its your job to say that Android midrange phones deliver 'a poor experience'- but they really are quite good.
Almost every day since he switched from his iPhone 4S earlier this year, I've had to listen to my manager complain about something with his S4, and says he absolutely "hates" it. He absolutely dreads having to open up his photo album, it takes minutes. Waiting for that certainly is an awesome experience!
If you are primarily an investor, and your primary interest in Apple is not using their products but rather buying their shares in the hopes that you can sell them for more money at a later date- all those blogs and articles probably should concern you, and just take all of your 'Apple passion' out of the argument. Apple's current valuation is based on them selling an insane amount of phones at profit margins much higher than other competitors in the market. Continuing to do as well as they are currently doing will not drive their stock price up- it will generally mean they are correctly valued and the stock price will remain relatively flat. In order for them to increase their valuation Apple will either need to sell substantially more phones at their current margins, or sell the same number of phones for higher margins. If they start selling few phones, or sell a similar number of phones at lower margins- their valuation goes down.
The assumption you've made is that the current valuation is commensurate with Apple's fundamentals, which it isn't. The current valuation assumes that Apple is basically through growing its earnings. It's a fair bet that Apple's earnings and revenue are both going to be increasing over the present fiscal year, and by a quite respectable amount. A quite doable 20% increase would net Apple $60 billion this fiscal year. If half of that were spent on buybacks and half on dividends, with only 900 million shares outstanding now and possibly only 850 million by the end of the fiscal year, then the dividend would amount to (30/.85=) $35 per share in dividends. At today's price of $520/share, that's almost a 7% dividend.
Frankly, the market would have to be insane to allow a 7% dividend. Ergo, the price of the stock would have to basically double to keep the dividend down to a sane 3.5% level.
And if Apple grows earnings over 20%? It boggles the mind....
BTW, notice the long term effect of buying back shares: Dividends per share explode. That's why Apple's present buyback program is sheer genius.
It sounds like you're predicting a dearth of future innovation. Why would you assume that?
You don't need to make a prediction for something that's already happened!
Smartphone technology has already reached the point where a basic entry level device is 'good enough' at performing day to day tasks for most users. It took PCs decades to reach that point. The bandwagon is already over for smartphones, move on. I'm sure there will be something else for first world consumers to fixate on before long.
Growing the accessibility of reasonably functioning 'good enough' smartphones to an increasingly wider market at ever shrinking price points is a good thing, why is it so difficult for so many people here see that?
A) Samsung Electronics overall nets less than Apple. Samsung Mobile sells more phones and earns less than Apple.
C) You neglect to mention that Samsung has far wider distribution than Apple, and its recent success comes largely from violating IP worldwide. That’s now drawing to a close. It is failing with most of its new ventures, from Smart TV to Gear watches. Tizen is a mess, Android is a commodity business, and it will increasing need to pay Microsoft and other phone makers for IP licenses, on top of having razor thin profit margins and little prospects for turning that around. It’s spending unsustainable amounts on advertising and seeing limited benefits. Samsung faces competitors who are virtually identical to it. If Apple faces dire threats from commoditization, what future does Samsung have, given that it has little original anything, and that everything it has can be duped by LG or cloned by Lenovo and the masses of Chinese firms who excel at making cheap junk slightly cheaper? Samsung has no reputation for quality, or design, or even good software.
D) Virtually all of your facts are completely backward. Makes one wonder why you share your uninformed opinions.
A) I'm under the impression that you are wrong. Last time I checked, Samsung electronics had more profit than Apple. Now, I can't remember if what was being compared was samsung's operational profit Vs Apple's net profit, I know similar mistakes were made in almost every news site, but the fact is that even if Samsung didn't earn more than Apple this last quarter, the difference was almost 0. Meanwhile, Samsung's profits are growing in the double digits while Apple, for various reasons, is mostly flat or going slightly down.
I would like that you would address this particular A) point, because it can by itself show how articles like this make no sense. Samsung alone makes more money from Apple or very close. What matters is $, so Samsung has a business model that is at least equal to Apple. Earning 2$ for potato is better than earning 1$ for potato, but if you can sell 3 and earn 1$ each instead of selling 1 and earn 2$... Oh well, it is a better practice.
Ecosystem-wise, Apple's offers little more (or nothing more) than Android in most countries. If you are a smartphone buyer and have limited $ to spend (because you don't have more or do not want to pay more), is the iPhone worth it? Here, the market has spoken. But My opinion is that Apple needs time:
C) About distribution: That's Apple's problem, not yours, mine or Samsung's. I agree with the rest of your point of view, but the fact is point A) again. Samsung is setting itself to totally pass Apple in net profit next year, so their strategy is paying off and their margins are healthy. Besides, their galaxy line has amazing brand power, only behind the iphone.
D) All of this makes me believe my facts are fine. And again, what is your deal with "junk" here, "worthless" there and now "why do you share..." as "go away".
Are you paid to be wrong or ignorant about the market? AI needs someone that lives outside the US or is at least interested to learn about the market and worldwide situation.
Daniel, you are wrong.
What is so darn important about platform market share? Most of the companies selling Android devices are barely making anything from all that huge amount of market share although there must be some companies selling decent products that consumers are happy to be using. Should it matter to anyone if Casio is selling more watches than, say, Movado, Tag Heuer or Rolex?
Spot on.
You have to remember though that most of these journalists, like most politicians and press think that the overriding metric for life is Gross Domestic Product (GDP). If that's going up then the economy is growing (whatever that implies) and all is well with the world, our lives are better and have more meaning and satisfaction. GDP growth is the target of (mainstream) politics and economists and market share growth is the equivalent target of analysts and short sighted companies.
It's no surprise that they find difficulty in seeing what's really important and what the implications are.
I'd love to see some research into how people are actually using phones like the Samsung Galaxy Y. I'm guessing that no-one here owns one and that DED has no data to back up his claim that they're only being used as basic camera-phones.
Just because it's not a powerful smartphone doesn't mean that it's not being used as a smartphone. If it's a big seller in China, you can bet that local app developers are targeting it. The same goes with India. Its processing power is about on par with the iPhone 3GS and we all agree that the 3GS is a smartphone, right?
waaay to low.
sure it isn't 100%
Spot on.
You have to remember though that most of these journalists, like most politicians and press think that the overriding metric for life is Gross Domestic Product (GDP). If that's going up then the economy is growing (whatever that implies) and all is well with the world, our lives are better and have more meaning and satisfaction. GDP growth is the target of (mainstream) politics and economists and market share growth is the equivalent target of analysts and short sighted companies.
It's no surprise that they find difficulty in seeing what's really important and what the implications are.
And that, brother, is the problem with the world today. Continual GDP growth is as impossible as perpetual motion but the global corporations and politicians keep telling us that it's the only financial model worth following.
I liked the 1% you used the first time.
I liked the 1% you used the first time.
For the people without sarcasm detectors.
I love how I've read this same news article on three different tech sites and every one of them spun it a different way haha.
Regarding "junk" phones in China, that no-one uses:
"The Xiaomi Mi3 is a very slim 8.1mm handset that features a 5-inch 1080p display and the latest Nvidia Tegra 4 chip with amazing graphics capabilities and 2GB of RAM. What’s most impressive, though, is its price. The Xiaomi Mi 3 price is set at 1999 yuan ($327) off contract."
That's a just announced, top-end device, from a manufacturer in China that has users more active in app usage than Apple's (and the company aims to make money from selling them things via the phone, Amazon Kindle HD style).
Basically equal or better than the latest, best Android phones you can buy anywhere in the world. They sell them in batches and 100,000 of them go in about 90 seconds.
$327 dollars, off-contract!
http://www.xiaomi.com/en/mi3
Ah another stat "proving" a point of view. Here's another stat source with competing claims.
http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-ww-monthly-201210-201310
http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-ww-monthly-201210-201310
Stats... we all got 'em but we don't trust 'em except when we want to.
Apple released Iphone6 image.Did you see it?If not see here http://imgdino.com/viewer.php?file=68880560336892107577.jpg