Apple's iPhone led 2013 US consumer smartphone sales with 45% share - NPD

Posted:
in iPhone edited February 2014
With more than 120 million smartphones sold in the U.S. in 2013, Apple's iPhone accounted for nearly half of those, taking a 45 percent share in its home market last year, new data released by the NPD Group on Thursday reveals.

NPD


The research firm's latest Mobile Phone Track shows that of 121 million smartphones sold last year in America, the iPhone accounted for 45 percent, making Apple the largest smartphone maker in the U.S. Overall smartphone sales were up 21 percent year over year.

The iPhone proved most popular among consumers earning $100,000 or more per year, while Samsung devices were more popular with those who earn less than $30,000.Apple's overall share was up slightly from 2012, when the company commanded a 44 percent share of the market. Second-place Samsung also saw it share gain slightly, from 24 percent in 2012 to 26 percent in 2013.

Lagging behind the two-horse race was LG, which represented 8 percent of smartphones sold in America last year. HTC took fourth with 6 percent, while Motorola came in fifth with 4 percent.

Apple's iPhone proved more popular among smartphone users who earn more than $100,000 per year, taking a 33 percent share among those buyers compared to Samsung's 18 percent. And Samsung's lower-priced options proved more popular than the iPhone for those who earn $60,000 or less in the U.S.

Still, NPD said that iPhone sales grew 64 percent among lower income customers who earn under $30,000 last year. However, that market segment accounted for just 20 percent of total 2013 iPhone sales.

"With the fastest growing segments of the industry in the lowest income demographics, both Apple and Samsung face challenges in 2014," said Stephen Baker, vice president of industry analysis at NPD. "For Samsung this demographic is likely to be the most competitive segment of the market in 2014 and they have a very high dependency on sales here. Apple has the opposite problem of gaining share in the fast growing entry-level market while still maintaining its position as the dominant supplier to affluent consumers."

Most of the mobile industry's growth seen in the U.S. in 2013 came from prepaid devices, which grew 68 percent last year, NPD said. Prepaid devices also accounted for 29 percent of the smartphone market, up from 14 percent in 2011.

While prepaid devices surged, postpaid devices still reign, accounting for 71 percent of handsets sold last year. Sales of postpaid devices increased by less than 10 percent in 2013.

The NPD Mobile Phone Track measures activities of U.S. consumers 18 or older who purchase a mobile phone or smartphone. The figures do not include corporate mobile phone purchases.

"In general, 2013 was a year of smartphone market stability for the U.S,," Baker said. "Overall industry growth was similar to that of 2012, and while the major hardware brands saw their shares increase marginally, the space between Apple and Samsung and the rest of the industry expanded once again."
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 69
    they sold more than anyone else? that is terrible business- Wall Street will make sure they pay for such a poor, underwhelming performance.
  • Reply 2 of 69
    Not only did Apple sell more, it earned more than the other mobile phone companies. Yes, Wall Street will find a reason to ding Apple's performance.
  • Reply 3 of 69
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by revenant View Post



    they sold more than anyone else? that is terrible business- Wall Street will make sure they pay for such a poor, underwhelming performance.

    Well, "obviously," their rate of growth has shrunk compared to Samsung, therefore, ipso facto, cogito ergo sum idiot, their stock value is wildly over -valued and a "market correction" will make it more in line with reality, since there is no room for growth, they're not making a cheaper iPhone, they charge too much, they're not open, they use a walled garden, and Mercury must be retrograde.

     

    (wow ... I think I just sprained something trying to fit so much garbage into one sentence!)

  • Reply 4 of 69
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,409member
    Well, "obviously," their rate of growth has shrunk compared to Samsung, therefore, ipso facto, cogito ergo sum idiot, their stock value is wildly over -valued and a "market correction" will make it more in line with reality, since there is no room for growth, they're not making a cheaper iPhone, they charge too much, they're not open, they use a walled garden, and Mercury must be retrograde.

    (wow ... I think I just sprained something trying to fit so much garbage into one sentence!)

    I think you nailed it ... take an aspirin and go to bed for a rest you earned it. :D
  • Reply 5 of 69
    Quite impressive considering that their 3-4 year old products are still selling like hot cakes, the 4 and 4S still going strong, at lower and lower production cost... it speaks volumes about the customer loyalty that they have earned. The new line of 2014 products with iPhone 6, iPad Pro, iWatch/health device, iTV, Mac Pro etc will only propel their share of wallet further upwards, and then all this nonsense talk of "smartphone market share" can finally stop. It is not about phones anymore... AAPL is repositioning themselves behind the scene, but try and explain that to IDC, Gartner, NPD and friends...
  • Reply 6 of 69
    jaytee wrote: »
    Quite impressive considering that their 3-4 year old products are still selling like hot cakes, the 4 and 4S still going strong, at lower and lower production cost... it speaks volumes about the customer loyalty that they have earned. The new line of 2014 products with iPhone 6, iPad Pro, iWatch/health device, iTV, Mac Pro etc will only propel their share of wallet further upwards, and then all this nonsense talk of "smartphone market share" can finally stop. It is not about phones anymore... AAPL is repositioning themselves behind the scene, but try and explain that to IDC, Gartner, NPD and friends...
    When 56% of your net sales are derived from smartphones directly then it is all about smartphones. As no one outside Apple knows what other products are coming and their potential income from them.
  • Reply 7 of 69
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by singularity View Post



    When 56% of your net sales are derived from smartphones directly then it is all about smartphones. As no one outside Apple knows what other products are coming and their potential income from them.

    Yes, most of Apple's eggs are in one basket.  A diversity of products is Sammy's strength. Though I'm not sure what share of Sammy's profits come from smartphones or TVs or toasters or vacuum cleaners.  (Or all-electric automobiles....) 

  • Reply 8 of 69
    How much of Apple sale are related to American protectionism?

    How much of Samsung no sale are related to American racism?

    That would change the figures a lot.
  • Reply 9 of 69
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,673member

    the model today is lose money but grow sales, look what happen to Tesla, they continue to loose money but the sale grew and wall street award it with a 20% bump in their stock. 

     

    As we all know Apple's got the formula all wrong, they need to loose more money than they make and buy things which will never generate a profit.

  • Reply 10 of 69
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post



    Not only did Apple sell more, it earned more than the other mobile phone companies. Yes, Wall Street will find a reason to ding Apple's performance.

    No sooner were your thoughts expressed than they were brought to reality:

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/162116/barclays-downgrades-rating-on-apple-stock-due-to-maturing-smartphone-market-tells-investors-to-step-aside

     

    Barclays' rationale? Because Apple can't innovate anything new.  ROTFLOL

     

    Quote:


    Reitzes added that he's not sold on the idea that new Apple products, such as a smart watch or a TV, "could move the needle like new categories did in the old days." 


     

    Those underperforming, unannounced products!

  • Reply 11 of 69
    Quote:


     Still, NPD said that iPhone sales grew 64 percent among lower income customers who earn under $30,000 last year. However, that market segment accounted for just 20 percent of total 2013 iPhone sales.



    "With the fastest growing segments of the industry in the lowest income demographics, both Apple and Samsung face challenges in 2014," said Stephen Baker, VP at NPD. "For Samsung this demographic is likely to be the most competitive segment of the market in 2014 and they have a very high dependency on sales here. Apple has the opposite problem of gaining share in the fast growing entry-level market while still maintaining its position as the dominant supplier to affluent consumers."


    In other words, Samsung has to do everything it can to win this market [read: lower prices even more, - less profit equals WIN!] while Analysts will consider Apple  a failure if it doesn't gain market share in the lower incomes without losing share at the high end profit end- [Less profits per unit equal LOSE!].

     

    In the end.  It's not even about phones.   it's about ecosystem.   The key balance that Apple has to maintain is that they need to capture the people who are looking towards their mobile ecosystem as a strategic partner, not a consumable expense, all the while grooming those people who can't afford the top of the line iProducts at this moment, but may in the future.

     

    Which is why I feel age stratification is more valuable than income stratification for predicting/driving mobile phone strategy

    Under 14 (mommy buying the phone)

    14 < age <=18 (the 'don't care years' )

    18 < age <=25 (no money years)

    25 < age <=35 (growing income years)

    35< age <=50  (stable income high expense)

    > age 50           (max net income years

    > age 65           (fixed income years)

     


     

    Apple IIRC is winning the 35-50 space and is losing the over 65 space (big screen).

    - This is why I think Apple is killing in the iPad space... 10" is the perfect sized computer for the older computer illiterate.

    - And this is why after 5 years in the market, Apple will evolve to a larger phone... because it's over 50 demographics will demand it as they 'age out'  The 3GS is out...  The 5s will be the new 'base phone (in 6 months likely in plastic and called the 6c, with the 5c at the .99 phone subbed), it follows that a larger phone will drop in at the same price points, and lock in the leakage at the top end (2 form factors for another 4 years - a forever in today's mobility market).

     

    The key space for Apple is winning the 25-35 space, as that

    - yoy income growth is greatest during this time

    - this defines the people who will most likely exploit iOS and mobility and integrate into their lives

        (you never forget your first love, your first text editor [TECO], and your first 'i bought this with some thought about purpose' mobile phone;-)

    - establishes the entry point to the 35-50 space (which defines the under 14 space).

     

    So for a prediction of the future... it's not about how much they earn, but when you capture them into the ecosystem for long term profit (40 years of iTunes Match?, an iPhone upgrade every 2 years, an iPad every 4?)

     

    I personally don't want Apple competing in the 14-18 space, which is where I think cheap phones are really marketed.  the 18-25 market is the space where values opinions are formed (liberal vs conservative,  vegan vs paleo, Audi vs BMW, Sam Adams vs Fat Tire ,  Chandon vs Veuv Cliquot)... and 'value' should always be 'attainable' but differentiated from the mass produced crap that people who 'don't care' procure.

  • Reply 12 of 69
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

     

    In other words, Samsung has to do everything it can to win this market [read: lower prices even more, - less profit equals WIN!] while Analysts will consider Apple  a failure if it doesn't gain market share in the lower incomes without losing share at the high end profit end- [Less profits per unit equal LOSE!].

     

    In the end.  It's not even about phones.   it's about ecosystem.   The key balance that Apple has to maintain is that they need to capture the people who are looking towards their mobile ecosystem as a strategic partner, not a consumable expense, all the while grooming those people who can't afford the top of the line iProducts at this moment, but may in the future.

     

    Which is why I feel age stratification is more valuable than income stratification for predicting/driving mobile phone strategy

    Under 14 (mommy buying the phone)

    14 < age <=18 (the 'don't care years' )

    18 < age <=25 (no money years)

    25 < age <=35 (growing income years)

    35< age <=50  (stable income high expense)

    > age 50           (max net income years

    > age 65           (fixed income years)

     


     

    Apple IIRC is winning the 35-50 space and is losing the over 65 space (big screen).

    - This is why I think Apple is killing in the iPad space... 10" is the perfect sized computer for the older computer illiterate.

    - And this is why after 5 years in the market, Apple will evolve to a larger phone... because it's over 50 demographics will demand it as they 'age out'  The 3GS is out...  The 5s will be the new 'base phone (in 6 months likely in plastic and called the 6c, with the 5c at the .99 phone subbed), it follows that a larger phone will drop in at the same price points, and lock in the leakage at the top end (2 form factors for another 4 years - a forever in today's mobility market).

     

    The key space for Apple is winning the 25-35 space, as that

    - yoy income growth is greatest during this time

    - this defines the people who will most likely exploit iOS and mobility and integrate into their lives

        (you never forget your first love, your first text editor [TECO], and your first 'i bought this with some thought about purpose' mobile phone;-)

    - establishes the entry point to the 35-50 space (which defines the under 14 space).

     

    So for a prediction of the future... it's not about how much they earn, but when you capture them into the ecosystem for long term profit (40 years of iTunes Match?, an iPhone upgrade every 2 years, an iPad every 4?)

     

    I personally don't want Apple competing in the 14-18 space, which is where I think cheap phones are really marketed.  the 18-25 market is the space where values opinions are formed (liberal vs conservative,  vegan vs paleo, Audi vs BMW, Sam Adams vs Fat Tire ,  Chandon vs Veuv Cliquot)... and 'value' should always be 'attainable' but differentiated from the mass produced crap that people who 'don't care' procure.


     Good insight, however with the over 65 it is more than bigger screen, they need bigger button since their motor controls are not much better than the 2 to 3 yr old, look at kids toys, the older generation tend to revert. 

     

    With that said I have seen more over 65 liking the ipad since it is easy to navigate and control, if even a big screen touch phone will not work for them.

  • Reply 13 of 69

    I LIKE owning the same phone that rich people use!  Me and all of the billionaires are exactly the same because of the phone we use.  Nobody can deny that about all of us!

  • Reply 14 of 69
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JayTee View Post



     It is not about phones anymore... AAPL is repositioning themselves behind the scene, but try and explain that to IDC, Gartner, NPD and friends...

    Even if you deduct all of the iPhone profits, Apple is still totally undervalued.  It is not about phones anymore - Apple doesn't care about phone profits, that is all over.

  • Reply 15 of 69
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot View Post

     

    No sooner were your thoughts expressed than they were brought to reality:

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/162116/barclays-downgrades-rating-on-apple-stock-due-to-maturing-smartphone-market-tells-investors-to-step-aside

     

    Barclays' rationale? Because Apple can't innovate anything new.  ROTFLOL

     

     

    Those underperforming, unannounced products!


    Yes, I saw the Barclay's downgrade soon after I wrote my response. I actually considered updating the response with... "Samsung shown to be gaining market share faster than Apple due to Apple's market share increasing by 1% from 44 to 45 while Samsung's market share increased by 2% from 24 to 26." Even though Apple is within striking distance of reaching 100 million iPhone sales in the USA, the apparently cannot do anything right.

  • Reply 16 of 69
    Originally Posted by jpd514 View Post

    That would change the figures a lot.

     

    No, not in the slightest.

     

    Now, xenophobia in South Korea itself, on the other hand…

  • Reply 17 of 69
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,718member
    jpd514 wrote: »
    How much of Apple sale are related to American protectionism?

    How much of Samsung no sale are related to American racism?

    That would change the figures a lot.

    Near Zero. The gen public doesn't care where its products are made.
  • Reply 18 of 69
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jpd514 View Post



    How much of Apple sale are related to American protectionism?



    How much of Samsung no sale are related to American racism?



    That would change the figures a lot.

    My gut feel is :

    -Very little, especially at the high end.  Samsung's current high end devices are not under any legal or tariff limits... those phones would by these counts be in the bargain basement sales bin (were Samsung is leading anyway)

     

    -Very little (most racists I know [and I know a few... I live in the south, and work with a militarist crew] hate apple because of foxconn... almost none can explain where the Samsung or LG they use is made [it ain't made in Oklahoma], and those that bristle at the comparison come back with the argument that South Korea is an American Protectorate, therefore it's 'american made' by proxy, to allow their little brains to wrap around the fallacies of their ignorance).

     

    - will change the figures by very little.      If you disagree, find us some facts to reinforce your strawman.

  • Reply 19 of 69

    Why doesn't Apple simply built itself a search engine?  Wall Street says that Google has no competition and it would seem like a wide-open market where Apple could make some money by putting its own search engine on all Apple products as default.  Apple would then become more like Google of having a business that is just like becoming part of the internet.  If Google is seen as having unlimited growth in search then Apple should also get itself some unlimited growth instead of continuing as a no-growth, range bound company.  So far, everything Apple has tried to do to boost its share price has turned sour for shareholders.  Dividends and buybacks are shown to be useless.  A company without major market share always seems to get left for dead.  Apple is going to need to come out with a radical new product every year or the company is going to lose more and more shareholder value.  If Apple had been able to acquire Tesla, I believed that would have drastically changed Wall Street's view of Apple's non-existent future.

  • Reply 20 of 69
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SudoNym View Post

     

    Even if you deduct all of the iPhone profits, Apple is still totally undervalued.  It is not about phones anymore - Apple doesn't care about phone profits, that is all over.


    I agree in general.. but it's about 'experience' which Apple believes starts with the handset/tablet/laptop/appliance.  It's still about 'phones' (pocket communications computers), in that Apple wants to make the net experience a quantum above everyone else... and that starts with the phone/pad/pod.

     

    As for phone profits, they do care, only in the fact that they want to project/extract maximum value at the entrance to the ecosystem, and make the rest of it painless (the iTMS 'tax' is on the content/service owner side... not on the device owner's side).   When Apple says it want's these to run 'break even' it really means they want the innovation to come at no 'new cost' to the device user.   Thus, the 'profit' the handset/tablets brings funds the next revolution for the rest of the corporation... it funds the 'next big thing.'  (you think AppleTV profits are funding Apple's 'TV' efforts? hardly.)

Sign In or Register to comment.