Google execs must be secretly wishing they never launched Android.
Maybe. But sometimes they have strange ideas.
A strong partnership with Apple would be much more profitable.
Almost for certain. And Google had the opportunity to continue the relationship with Maps, and decided to keep the best parts for itself. So Apple built its own version, cutting off a nice revenue stream for Google.
If I understand it correctly, Google was making more from iOS than from Android. And Microsoft certainly is making more from Android than is Google. Weird, indeed.
They have no brand loyalty. Just some buzz and a fad. It happened with Motorola and the RAZR. Then Samsung and the S3. They're up to the S5 now, but it's basically the same phone that's still running Android. It's OK, but only Apple can deliver innovative new hardware AND software that keep users excited and coming back for more. I owned a RAZR and it was a great phone for it's time. I also owned a S3 and it was a great phone when I couldn't get an iPhone. Nobody cares about Samsung or Motorola the way people care about Apple.
I've always felt that iPhone and Android would end up like Mac and PC. Hard as hell to make money selling PCs, but there are many more of them out there.
Samsung is a huge Korean conglomerate with many other LOB's. They still generates tons of cash and will be a formidable competitor, in smartphones, tablets, and PC's for years to come...
Samsung is Microsoft. They copy instead of innovate and they will follow in the same footsteps Microsoft has.
When companies stop making money on a product, they stop making the product.
Samsung stopped PCs in Europe, and is likely to follow Sony in giving up on PCs entirely, for example, the same way Apple has nearly given up on iPods or the way Microsoft stopped making Zunes after saying it was in that business to stay.
However, Samsung will be in the phone business for some time, which should provide some schadenfreude entertainment. Because it's unlikely that it will ever be able to return to making tons of money on Galaxy phones, or return to spending billions on marketing.
Samsung spent $13 billion on marketing in 2013. Can't do that when your entire mobile business is only making ~ $1.3 per quarter, can you?
How much of apples operating profit was from just mobile?
Well over sixty percent. Apple does not break out profit by product category, however iPhones make up 56% of the company revenue, iPads 13%, and iPods 1% according to MacRumors. Macs make up 16% of the revenue, the iTunes Store 11%.
The gross margins on the iPhone are very high, less so for the iPads. When iPhone sales excel in a given quarter, it is reflected in the company-wide gross margin number. This would not be the case if the iPhone category gross margin is weak.
The fact that the company took the word "Computer" out of its name several years ago truly reflects the reality of what the company does today.
This is just a glorious demonstration of how capitalism works. competition drives continuous improvement and increased production that in turn is desired by consumers. aaple was made to improve its products because samsung was a competitive threat. Now it remains or be seen if samsung can keep up. Here is how it was seen sixty years ago, before we went and got all Keynesian:
This is just a glorious demonstration of how capitalism works. competition drives continuous improvement and increased production that in turn is desired by consumers. aaple was made to improve its products because samsung was a competitive threat. Now it remains or be seen if samsung can keep up. Here is how it was seen sixty years ago, before we went and got all Keynesian:
I question your premise that "aaple [sic] was made to improve its products because samsung was a competitive threat".
I simply don't think that has even the slightest basis in fact.
That would be like trying to argue the Eagles play better because of Milli Vanilli.
I think this article is pretty far off the mark. It's clearly the Chinese that are eating Samsung's lunch, not Apple. Xiaomi, One Plus, Lenovo, Meizu to name a few. They all have direct competitors to Samsung's S and Note line of phones. And if you look at their growth it's coincides with Samsung's decline.
AI should do some more research.
I doubt many people were considering getting a Note 4 vs an iPhone 6 plus. They were looking that the Note 4 at $700 and one of the many 5.5" -6" Chinese phones with top end specs at less than half the cost. We're talking S-LCD screens, Qualcomm 800 series chips, all the top components at HALF the cost. Pretty clear.
That was the thermonuclear strike, not the iPhone 6 Plus.
Samsung sold almost the same amount of phones so far in 2014 as 2013. The difference is they are selling 50% less top end phones. Xiaomi does not make top end phones so Xiaomi is not hurting Samsung, Apple is. Looking at the numbers Samsung is actually selling MORE mid and low end phones than last year.
But the media does not want to give Apple any credit so they say Xiaomi is killing Samsung.
You're wrong in that it's Apple but you're right in that it's not Xiaomi.
The reality is, it's not "just" Xiaomi. it's Xiaomi, Lenovo, One plus, and Meizu that is eating Samsung's lunch.
Just do a little bit of research and you'll see their grow coincide with Samsung's decline.
Not need to argue, the facts are out there if you care to bother looking.
Comments
How do you define mobile? If you include laptops, it will probably lower the margin slightly.
Google execs must be secretly wishing they never launched Android.
Maybe. But sometimes they have strange ideas.
Almost for certain. And Google had the opportunity to continue the relationship with Maps, and decided to keep the best parts for itself. So Apple built its own version, cutting off a nice revenue stream for Google.
If I understand it correctly, Google was making more from iOS than from Android. And Microsoft certainly is making more from Android than is Google. Weird, indeed.
How much of apples operating profit was from just mobile?
I don't think Apple breaks out its mobile operating profit numbers. Many news reports put it at ~60%. However, we know that iPhones contribute to approximately 56% of Apple's revenues: http://www.statista.com/statistics/253649/iphone-revenue-as-share-of-apples-total-revenue/
How do you define mobile?
I think it's pretty evident from my post.
Perhaps you're better off asking patpatpat if he had something else in mind.
I've always felt that iPhone and Android would end up like Mac and PC. Hard as hell to make money selling PCs, but there are many more of them out there.
Samsung is a huge Korean conglomerate with many other LOB's. They still generates tons of cash and will be a formidable competitor, in smartphones, tablets, and PC's for years to come...
Samsung is Microsoft. They copy instead of innovate and they will follow in the same footsteps Microsoft has.
Go to page 27.
edit: Mea culpa. That's net sales, not net income.
Ah, schadenfreude served cold .... :smokey:
How much of apples operating profit was from just mobile?
Well over sixty percent. Apple does not break out profit by product category, however iPhones make up 56% of the company revenue, iPads 13%, and iPods 1% according to MacRumors. Macs make up 16% of the revenue, the iTunes Store 11%.
The gross margins on the iPhone are very high, less so for the iPads. When iPhone sales excel in a given quarter, it is reflected in the company-wide gross margin number. This would not be the case if the iPhone category gross margin is weak.
The fact that the company took the word "Computer" out of its name several years ago truly reflects the reality of what the company does today.
Tee hee, he said beleaguered… finally, the torch is passed!
[VIDEO]
I question your premise that "aaple [sic] was made to improve its products because samsung was a competitive threat".
I simply don't think that has even the slightest basis in fact.
That would be like trying to argue the Eagles play better because of Milli Vanilli.
AI should do some more research.
I doubt many people were considering getting a Note 4 vs an iPhone 6 plus. They were looking that the Note 4 at $700 and one of the many 5.5" -6" Chinese phones with top end specs at less than half the cost. We're talking S-LCD screens, Qualcomm 800 series chips, all the top components at HALF the cost. Pretty clear.
That was the thermonuclear strike, not the iPhone 6 Plus.
I see the larger 6 and 6 plus as a definite improvement. Samsung dominated the large form factor segment until now.
I don't buy the premise because I don't consider having better products than your opponents in a free market is going thermonuclear.
Well, Apple didn't set out to make a product that would hurt Samsung, but that's exactly what happened.
They say the best revenge is success. And the iPhone 6/6P serve up a huge portion of that.
Did you not read the article by Daniel?
Samsung sold almost the same amount of phones so far in 2014 as 2013. The difference is they are selling 50% less top end phones. Xiaomi does not make top end phones so Xiaomi is not hurting Samsung, Apple is. Looking at the numbers Samsung is actually selling MORE mid and low end phones than last year.
But the media does not want to give Apple any credit so they say Xiaomi is killing Samsung.
You're wrong in that it's Apple but you're right in that it's not Xiaomi.
The reality is, it's not "just" Xiaomi. it's Xiaomi, Lenovo, One plus, and Meizu that is eating Samsung's lunch.
Just do a little bit of research and you'll see their grow coincide with Samsung's decline.
Not need to argue, the facts are out there if you care to bother looking.
I don't buy the premise because I don't consider having better products than your opponents in a free market is going thermonuclear.
I think perhaps you mean you don't buy the rhetoric - the premise seems well-supported.