Wasn't this guy around when $200 Windows netbooks were going to be the hottest platform on the planet and Apple was said to be doomed because they didn't sell one. What a doofus.
I don't think selling at cost would be a good idea for Apple. But I wish they would consider mid-range or even low cost with 25%-35% margins. Apple could easily sell a mid-range $350-$400 phone. For example, when the iPhone 6 gets out, why not sell the 5c in the $350 - $400 range instead of the usual $450 price point for a 2 years old phone?
Totally agree. I would like Apple to have at least a 50% market share with using the 5c as an inexpensive entry point.
Google doesn't really need or care what the profit is for their manufacturers as long as the phones are using google services that translate into advertising revenue.
I remember that at one time the Macintosh had the overwhelming majority of the PC GUI operating system market, but then the PCs came along with Windows 95 and blew them out of the water; to where Apple's market share was so low they had to be saved by Bill Gates's bailout. Hopefully history won't repeat itself.
Uh, folks, while I appreciate your indignation at AI's article on the IDC report, I decided to read the actual IDC report (or more accurately Press Release) for myself. Seems to me the IDC report that the AI article links to is either a) the wrong IDC report, or b) doesn't say what AI says it does. For example, the IDC report's title is:
"Android and iOS Continue to Dominate the Worldwide Smartphone Market with Android Shipments Just Shy of 800 Million in 2013, According to IDC"
Nothing to complain about there, eh? In the text the only "analysis" mentioning Apple I could find was this which was quoted in part by AI:
"Clearly, there was strong end-user demand for both Android and iOS products during the quarter and the year," says Ramon Llamas, Research Manager with IDC's Mobile Phone team. "What stands out are the different routes Android and Apple took to meet this demand. Android relied on its long list of OEM partners, a broad and deep collection of devices, and price points that appealed to nearly every market segment. Apple's iOS, on the other hand, relied on nearly the opposite approach: a limited selection of Apple-only devices, whose prices trended higher than most. Despite these differences, both platforms found a warm reception to their respective user experiences and selection of mobile applications."
*(emphasis mine)
I know that I'm not the sharpest tool in the proverbial shed, so if anyone can explain to me exactly what in the actual IDC report is so offensive, I'd be mighty appreciative.
I remember that at one time the Macintosh had the overwhelming majority of the PC GUI operating system market, but then the PCs came along with Windows 95 and blew them out of the water; to where Apple's market share was so low they had to be saved by Bill Gates's bailout. Hopefully history won't repeat itself.
Back then: Apple had low desktop market share... and no money.
Today: Apple has low smartphone market share... and plenty of money.
So which is actually a problem... the market share or the money?
Not sure it matters one bit what IDC writes: it doesn't factor into Apple's product strategy. But I suppose IDC earns money by publicizing these "studies." That's what they're selling.
I find IDC's market share numbers informative. However, IDC should stick with that and go no further. Receipt of their check from Google and Samsung is clearly visible in their "analysis" of what those numbers actually mean.
With profits as made by Motorola, RIMM, HTC, Huawei, Xiaomi, etc, none of these firms will be around this time next year. That means that Samsung, filling the volume void, will no longer be profitable. How long will that last before bottom tier handset ASPs rise about $100 - $150?
I remember that at one time the Macintosh had the overwhelming majority of the PC GUI operating system market, but then the PCs came along with Windows 95 and blew them out of the water; to where Apple's market share was so low they had to be saved by Bill Gates's bailout. Hopefully history won't repeat itself.
Um, PC GUI market? Are we now making up markets? Bill Gates didn't bail out Apple. They settled various patent "disagreements".
Arm chair analyst always come up with this kind of baseless analysis. Apple is obviously making wise and informed decisions, that is why they are the most valuable company.
By implication, IF, as IDC implies, Apple could sell more handsets by selling lower priced models, those sales have to come from...... Samsung and others, making the profit picture even bleaker for others....and Samsung. I am beginning to like... /snort.
I remember that at one time the Macintosh had the overwhelming majority of the PC GUI operating system market, but then the PCs came along with Windows 95 and blew them out of the water; to where Apple's market share was so low they had to be saved by Bill Gates's bailout. Hopefully history won't repeat itself.
This persistent meme is incorrect that the $150 million purchase of non-voting Apple stock by Bill Gates's Microsoft bailed out Apple.
At the time (Aug 97) Apple still had $1230 million in cash and equivalents:
More of the same irrelevant and fallacious garbage from AI... IDC is speaking about MARKET SHARE, yet the author of this drivel can't keep himself to speak of something else, margins, while shooting the messenger like if they were plotting on bath-mouthing Apple, which is borderline stupid or could be the symptoms of cognitive troubles, but there it is something else, it is called a deflection and a diversion, which is the recipe for a propagandist and certainly not any journalist or honorable blogger...
Zz
People should really read the IDC press release and compare it to this whiny and irrelevant drivel...
Comments
Wasn't this guy around when $200 Windows netbooks were going to be the hottest platform on the planet and Apple was said to be doomed because they didn't sell one. What a doofus.
I don't think selling at cost would be a good idea for Apple. But I wish they would consider mid-range or even low cost with 25%-35% margins. Apple could easily sell a mid-range $350-$400 phone. For example, when the iPhone 6 gets out, why not sell the 5c in the $350 - $400 range instead of the usual $450 price point for a 2 years old phone?
Totally agree. I would like Apple to have at least a 50% market share with using the 5c as an inexpensive entry point.
Google doesn't really need or care what the profit is for their manufacturers as long as the phones are using google services that translate into advertising revenue.
I remember that at one time the Macintosh had the overwhelming majority of the PC GUI operating system market, but then the PCs came along with Windows 95 and blew them out of the water; to where Apple's market share was so low they had to be saved by Bill Gates's bailout. Hopefully history won't repeat itself.
Uh, folks, while I appreciate your indignation at AI's article on the IDC report, I decided to read the actual IDC report (or more accurately Press Release) for myself. Seems to me the IDC report that the AI article links to is either a) the wrong IDC report, or b) doesn't say what AI says it does. For example, the IDC report's title is:
"Android and iOS Continue to Dominate the Worldwide Smartphone Market with Android Shipments Just Shy of 800 Million in 2013, According to IDC"
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS24676414
Nothing to complain about there, eh? In the text the only "analysis" mentioning Apple I could find was this which was quoted in part by AI:
"Clearly, there was strong end-user demand for both Android and iOS products during the quarter and the year," says Ramon Llamas, Research Manager with IDC's Mobile Phone team. "What stands out are the different routes Android and Apple took to meet this demand. Android relied on its long list of OEM partners, a broad and deep collection of devices, and price points that appealed to nearly every market segment. Apple's iOS, on the other hand, relied on nearly the opposite approach: a limited selection of Apple-only devices, whose prices trended higher than most. Despite these differences, both platforms found a warm reception to their respective user experiences and selection of mobile applications."
*(emphasis mine)
I know that I'm not the sharpest tool in the proverbial shed, so if anyone can explain to me exactly what in the actual IDC report is so offensive, I'd be mighty appreciative.
Back then: Apple had low desktop market share... and no money.
Today: Apple has low smartphone market share... and plenty of money.
So which is actually a problem... the market share or the money?
With profits as made by Motorola, RIMM, HTC, Huawei, Xiaomi, etc, none of these firms will be around this time next year. That means that Samsung, filling the volume void, will no longer be profitable. How long will that last before bottom tier handset ASPs rise about $100 - $150?
Um, PC GUI market? Are we now making up markets? Bill Gates didn't bail out Apple. They settled various patent "disagreements".
It's called the Mini Cooper
Hence share value goes up, it's so simple in it's stupidity that any fool can see it.
A fool and their money are soon parted and that my friends is what keeps Wall Street paved with gold.
Making trash?
Trash cans?
iCan?
ICAHN!
IT’S A CONSPIRACY, MAN.
This persistent meme is incorrect that the $150 million purchase of non-voting Apple stock by Bill Gates's Microsoft bailed out Apple.
At the time (Aug 97) Apple still had $1230 million in cash and equivalents:
Microsoft and Apple Affirm Commitment To Build Next Generation Software for Macintosh
Apple Inc. Form 10-K Annual Report, Filed Dec 5, 1997
Apple need advice because they only have 159 thousand million dollars in the bank, which is barely enough to buy a small country these days.
Apple need advice because they only have 159 thousand million dollars in the bank, which is barely enough to buy a small country these days.
It's more than the USA has.
Zz
People should really read the IDC press release and compare it to this whiny and irrelevant drivel...
Everybody knows that you always can make up the different from having to sell each item at a loss by having huge volume.