In numbers current as of last month, Android owns 78% of the worldwide market. That number pretty much speaks for itself.
Errrnt, nope. That's just the nonsense of worshipping at the church of market share. Android isn't a company or even a product, it's a splintered code base out in the wild. The vast majority of its market share is provided by cheap chinese knockoffs that nobody even cares about.
Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up. It's feasting on the lion's share of meat while the rest of the android hyenas fight amongst themselves for scraps of leather and bone. "But there are more hyenas than lions!" Uhh yeah, so what??
Android is a product. No doubt about it.
iOS is also splintered, just not as much.
The vast majority of market share is not taken by your so-called Chinese knock-offs.
Uhm, you are aware that Apple will be supporting iOS 12 all the way back to the iPhone 5s which arrived in September 2013; essentially every 64 bit iPhone model. Not much "splintered" there compared to all of the unique models, UX's and UI's, forks, and bundled spyware, that as a generalization, defines Android OS devices.
Certainly, specific device makers do better than others as far as Android OS "splintering".
No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit, but it is certainly true that Apple retains most of the profits of hardware device makers. What you don't like to acknowledge, much anyway, is the acquisition costs that those same Chinese device makers have to sink in order to increase unit sales.
But, yeah, I'm not supposed to talk about ASP 'cause it hurts the consumer.
Uhm, yes I'm aware of that. It won't change what I said.
"No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit"
But they did, and it is one of the reasons I commented. You quoted it yourself. If you click on 'show previous quotes' you will see this:
"Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up"
You are correct, though.
ASP (you're talking specifically about high ASP) doesn't hurt (beyond burning a bigger hole in the pocket) the consumer. It is simply irrevelant to the consumer.
Lack of enough ASP for a device maker forces them to cobble up and install a heck of a lot of crap (malware, spyware, adware, sketchy services) on a device in order to generate a bit of revenue. Wouldn't you agree that might lead to a lesser user experience compared to, say, a Pixel 2?
I have said it many times. Most companies exist to make money. Very, very few aspire to make the most money.
The same applies to ASP.
You have people right here claiming 'but Apple makes the most money', 'Apple has the highest ASP', etc
My reply is 'and...?'
In the past I have given examples of companies that just want to provide a decent product at a decent price and do it profitably.
This particular industry has reached saturation point in the developed world, has seen slight contraction and consolidation. That is putting a squeeze on the smaller fish in the pond but there are still hundreds of companies making a profit even though some go out of business.
At the other end you have companies producing far better phones than even the iPhone X, at far lower prices, on much lower ASPs. Huawei invests 10% of its revenues each year in R&D and has more than 80,000 employees working in R&D around the globe. It counts profits in the billions but doesn't have the highest ASP. That R&D investment can lead to patents. Ironically, Apple licences a ton of patents to Apple. All this with a far lower ASP than Apple.
ASP is nice for investors. Consumers don't care. Perhaps they would care more if they were informed of how much of the purchase price went directly into Apple's tax free coffers and sat there for years on end.
You totally ignored the point of crapware as a substitute for revenue on low ASP models. That certainly has an effect on consumers, who likely care about malware, spyware, and adware, that comes with there "cheap" phone.
While I have innumerable Android handsets available to me in-store and online, I have yet to see any that jump out as the 'crapware' type that you mention.
If you had thought things through a little more, you may have resisted from posting that link. ;-)
It is mainly about phones that are returned -from retail. Unsold phones or phones returned to retail after initial sale. Not good.
It also states that a tiny percentage are sold abroad. Demand is high for lower priced iPhone X where phones such as the P20 Pro aren't as readily available. It might explain why I have only seen about three iPhone X in the wild since release in my neck of the woods.
That’s just wrong. Apple sells a lot of phones abroad, just not in the high percentage as the US, except for Japan.
Could be. I am simply commenting on what was said and my own personal experience travelling around the city most of the day.
Not could be, definitely. Apple sells almost 65% of its products abroad. That’s fact, not supposition. What’s also fact is the the population of the US is what, about 6% of the worlds population? So selling most of their products outside of the US would result in you not seeing them nearly as much as in the US, except for a few countries whose iPhone percentage is higher than here, such as Australia and Japan, and GB, where it’s almost as high.
its pretty simpke
Remember that the article is specifically targeting the iPhone X as opposed to all iPhones:
"One reason for this is high domestic demand. While a significant percentage of iPhone models are sent overseas, the company says that almost all iPhone X models are sold within the USA, with just 2% being sold abroad"
As we have no information on model breakdowns I think it's a tough call. However, the article makes it clear that most iPhones ship overseas but then makes that claim on the iPhone X specifically.
I agree with you that it seems highly improbable or even outright wrong but without anything solid to go on (no official breakdown of model shipments) it difficult to know for sure.
If I were attending the conference call for next week's earnings call this would definitely be my question:
I hear that only 2 out of every 100 iPhone X are sold outside the US. What is the real split between US and international iPhone X sales?
In numbers current as of last month, Android owns 78% of the worldwide market. That number pretty much speaks for itself.
Errrnt, nope. That's just the nonsense of worshipping at the church of market share. Android isn't a company or even a product, it's a splintered code base out in the wild. The vast majority of its market share is provided by cheap chinese knockoffs that nobody even cares about.
Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up. It's feasting on the lion's share of meat while the rest of the android hyenas fight amongst themselves for scraps of leather and bone. "But there are more hyenas than lions!" Uhh yeah, so what??
Android is a product. No doubt about it.
iOS is also splintered, just not as much.
The vast majority of market share is not taken by your so-called Chinese knock-offs.
Uhm, you are aware that Apple will be supporting iOS 12 all the way back to the iPhone 5s which arrived in September 2013; essentially every 64 bit iPhone model. Not much "splintered" there compared to all of the unique models, UX's and UI's, forks, and bundled spyware, that as a generalization, defines Android OS devices.
Certainly, specific device makers do better than others as far as Android OS "splintering".
No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit, but it is certainly true that Apple retains most of the profits of hardware device makers. What you don't like to acknowledge, much anyway, is the acquisition costs that those same Chinese device makers have to sink in order to increase unit sales.
But, yeah, I'm not supposed to talk about ASP 'cause it hurts the consumer.
Uhm, yes I'm aware of that. It won't change what I said.
"No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit"
But they did, and it is one of the reasons I commented. You quoted it yourself. If you click on 'show previous quotes' you will see this:
"Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up"
You are correct, though.
ASP (you're talking specifically about high ASP) doesn't hurt (beyond burning a bigger hole in the pocket) the consumer. It is simply irrevelant to the consumer.
Lack of enough ASP for a device maker forces them to cobble up and install a heck of a lot of crap (malware, spyware, adware, sketchy services) on a device in order to generate a bit of revenue. Wouldn't you agree that might lead to a lesser user experience compared to, say, a Pixel 2?
I have said it many times. Most companies exist to make money. Very, very few aspire to make the most money.
The same applies to ASP.
You have people right here claiming 'but Apple makes the most money', 'Apple has the highest ASP', etc
My reply is 'and...?'
In the past I have given examples of companies that just want to provide a decent product at a decent price and do it profitably.
This particular industry has reached saturation point in the developed world, has seen slight contraction and consolidation. That is putting a squeeze on the smaller fish in the pond but there are still hundreds of companies making a profit even though some go out of business.
At the other end you have companies producing far better phones than even the iPhone X, at far lower prices, on much lower ASPs. Huawei invests 10% of its revenues each year in R&D and has more than 80,000 employees working in R&D around the globe. It counts profits in the billions but doesn't have the highest ASP. That R&D investment can lead to patents. Ironically, Apple licences a ton of patents to Apple. All this with a far lower ASP than Apple.
ASP is nice for investors. Consumers don't care. Perhaps they would care more if they were informed of how much of the purchase price went directly into Apple's tax free coffers and sat there for years on end.
None of those phones are much better than an iPhone. They’re not even better.
but what you, and the cheerleaders for those Chinese companies either don’t know, or won’t acknowledge, is that they get under priced loans from Chinese government owned, or controlled banks. They often aren’t required to repay these loans, and they get subsidies as well. Most are losing money, some very badly. And who knows just what they get from the Chinese government industrial spying? As we know, almost all of Apple’s car project came close to getting stolen.It’s not an even playing field. Those low prices aren’t realworld.
huawei in particular, is partly controlled directly by the Chinese government.
That's a lot of speculation there. Throw me some links to support it at least.
Huawei has constantly claimed that its only involvement with the Chinese government is that required by law. Just like any other company operating in China. Huawei is wholly owned by its employees (those that participate in the share scheme).
The entire Spanish banking system was bailed out using taxpayers' money a few years ago. The US is no different when it comes to helping out US companies. The defacto ban on Huawei has no evidence of any kind to support it and Huawei has presented a 100 page rebuttal of any suspicions:
"Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. (“Huawei”) applaud
the Commission’s objectives of protecting the nation’s communications networks and supply chain, but the mechanism by which the Commission aims to do so—i.e., blacklisting a handful of suppliers—is both improper and imprudent for multiple reasons. This proposal exceeds the statutory authority granted to the Commission; is arbitrary and capricious; will cause costs far in excess of any slight benefits; violates constitutional and statutory procedural requirements; and relies on unverified and unsupportable factual allegations. The Commission should not adopt its proposed rule."
That decision has more to do with protectionism than national security. Huawei handsets are not banned. Carriers have been arm twisted into backing out of distribution deals according to some sources.
The criticism of Huawei's involvement with US universities is just absurd. This is the rebuttal:
Are you saying the P20 Pro is not better than the iPhone X? How are you defining better?
It is better on price It is better on modem It is better on battery It is better on capacity It is better on AI It is better on camera It has dual SIM, dual VoLTE, better location tracking, better cell handover, desktop mode etc.
Put an iPhone X and a P20 Pro side by side and ask people which one looks better from a shell design perspective.
Save that last point, the rest are basically objective assessments which can be consulted through online searches.
The superior Mate RS has 512GB of internal storage and uses aerospace cooling technology with microcapsule phase change materials inside and an inscreen fingerprint scanner etc.
Personal taste and opinion excepted, you will find general consensus leaning to the P20 Pro in this case. That doesn't mean the iPhone X is bad. Some will prefer it or a Samsung or a Pixel but when you look at what you are getting in key areas (like the ones listed above), the iPhone does come up short in many areas.
I can’t respond to the first link because I let my FT sub lapse, and it’s not worth go8ng through the hassle to sign again for the very l8mited free sub.
the second one is just nonsense. It could have been written as “Head of company says accusations are false.” Whoopie. That proves nothing. Also the EU is working on a ban of their products because of spying problems.
ill continue this post as I read the links.
the third is in dispute. There has been evidence that what the company is saying isn’t true. They are able to use what amounts to a guarantee of that money to get credit lines to suppliers, credit lines they otherwise wouldn’t be able to obtain. That’s without using a single Yuan of that money.
i couldn’t get to the pdf. I waited almost 2 minutes, it it never got there. I’ll try again later.
i don’t particularly have a problem with them giving money to universities for research if, as they say, all of it is openly published in recognized journals. These days, corporate money in research is common. Too common, I think, as government funding for research is severely cut back, which is just wrong. The university gets the patents that resul, if any, and then license them, usually, to the corporate sponsor. This is also common.
i don’t agree about the P20, because a number of those features aren’t quite what they’re represented as being. The face recognition is zippy, but. Not secure. The behind the screen fingerprint sensor works, most of the time. But if Apple’s worker that “well” they would be criticized over it. The camera is good, but the three lenses, so far, have not been shown to be much more than a gimmick.
the price goes back to what we’re arguing about. They have to show that they aren’t actually losing money on this, which they are believed to be.
as one writer observed, and no, he wasn’t from some Apple publication, Android phones are reviewed on a curve. Problems are usually given short thrift, while minor advances are given paragraphs. Apple’s products are reviewed much more critically, with every tiny problem blown up out of proportion. There is a definite bias in the media towards Google and Android. Even AndroudCentral is sometimes surprised at it.
In numbers current as of last month, Android owns 78% of the worldwide market. That number pretty much speaks for itself.
Errrnt, nope. That's just the nonsense of worshipping at the church of market share. Android isn't a company or even a product, it's a splintered code base out in the wild. The vast majority of its market share is provided by cheap chinese knockoffs that nobody even cares about.
Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up. It's feasting on the lion's share of meat while the rest of the android hyenas fight amongst themselves for scraps of leather and bone. "But there are more hyenas than lions!" Uhh yeah, so what??
Android is a product. No doubt about it.
iOS is also splintered, just not as much.
The vast majority of market share is not taken by your so-called Chinese knock-offs.
Uhm, you are aware that Apple will be supporting iOS 12 all the way back to the iPhone 5s which arrived in September 2013; essentially every 64 bit iPhone model. Not much "splintered" there compared to all of the unique models, UX's and UI's, forks, and bundled spyware, that as a generalization, defines Android OS devices.
Certainly, specific device makers do better than others as far as Android OS "splintering".
No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit, but it is certainly true that Apple retains most of the profits of hardware device makers. What you don't like to acknowledge, much anyway, is the acquisition costs that those same Chinese device makers have to sink in order to increase unit sales.
But, yeah, I'm not supposed to talk about ASP 'cause it hurts the consumer.
Uhm, yes I'm aware of that. It won't change what I said.
"No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit"
But they did, and it is one of the reasons I commented. You quoted it yourself. If you click on 'show previous quotes' you will see this:
"Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up"
You are correct, though.
ASP (you're talking specifically about high ASP) doesn't hurt (beyond burning a bigger hole in the pocket) the consumer. It is simply irrevelant to the consumer.
Lack of enough ASP for a device maker forces them to cobble up and install a heck of a lot of crap (malware, spyware, adware, sketchy services) on a device in order to generate a bit of revenue. Wouldn't you agree that might lead to a lesser user experience compared to, say, a Pixel 2?
I have said it many times. Most companies exist to make money. Very, very few aspire to make the most money.
The same applies to ASP.
You have people right here claiming 'but Apple makes the most money', 'Apple has the highest ASP', etc
My reply is 'and...?'
In the past I have given examples of companies that just want to provide a decent product at a decent price and do it profitably.
This particular industry has reached saturation point in the developed world, has seen slight contraction and consolidation. That is putting a squeeze on the smaller fish in the pond but there are still hundreds of companies making a profit even though some go out of business.
At the other end you have companies producing far better phones than even the iPhone X, at far lower prices, on much lower ASPs. Huawei invests 10% of its revenues each year in R&D and has more than 80,000 employees working in R&D around the globe. It counts profits in the billions but doesn't have the highest ASP. That R&D investment can lead to patents. Ironically, Apple licences a ton of patents to Apple. All this with a far lower ASP than Apple.
ASP is nice for investors. Consumers don't care. Perhaps they would care more if they were informed of how much of the purchase price went directly into Apple's tax free coffers and sat there for years on end.
You totally ignored the point of crapware as a substitute for revenue on low ASP models. That certainly has an effect on consumers, who likely care about malware, spyware, and adware, that comes with there "cheap" phone.
While I have innumerable Android handsets available to me in-store and online, I have yet to see any that jump out as the 'crapware' type that you mention.
If you had thought things through a little more, you may have resisted from posting that link. ;-)
It is mainly about phones that are returned -from retail. Unsold phones or phones returned to retail after initial sale. Not good.
It also states that a tiny percentage are sold abroad. Demand is high for lower priced iPhone X where phones such as the P20 Pro aren't as readily available. It might explain why I have only seen about three iPhone X in the wild since release in my neck of the woods.
That’s just wrong. Apple sells a lot of phones abroad, just not in the high percentage as the US, except for Japan.
From 2016 to now I would expect the Samsung Profit picture changed greatly because 2016 was the year of the exploding Notes and now Samsung gets a nice little extra profit on each iPhone X sold because of the OLED screen.
I used to like the HTC ONE M7 and M8 designs but never bought one because it would have meant using Android. I due remember that the phones were criticized for their Camera which is now one of the most important features of a phone.
Samsung has never made as much money on their fkagships as Apple because even though the list prices are the same, apparently, with the actual selling prices of Galaxy models, including the Note (which usually sells about 5-7 million a year, worldwide) being much lower, Samsung is squeezed by that. There is no way retailers are going to sell phones and can make no profit, so Samsung must be subsidizing those low prices.
Usually, after just a few weeks after they come out, Galaxy models are going for a buy one, get one for 50% off, and even a buy one and get one for free, or buy one and get a free Galaxy Tab 3 tablet. These are independent from the carriers who often bring in customers on 2 year contracts (yes, many people still do that) by giving a flagship phone at a big discount, or for “free” (it’s not).
these numbers don’t count the sales and profits from Samsung electronics parts sales. They’re exclusively from the selling of phones. It’s like counting iPad and Mac sales in iPhone sales numbers. No.
Mel, you might have missed news that Apple was requiring Japanese carriers to subsidize iPhones in order to keep prices artificially low and limit competitors ability to raise prices to a more profitable level. In Japan they've agreed to stop requiring it (among some other changes) to avoid an antitrust lawsuit. During the investigation it was determined that Apple had the same carrier rules mandating artificially low pricing in other regions including the US, and I've not seen anywhere that Apple was offering to eliminate that contractual requirement anywhere else tho they certainly could have. I wouldn't have expected Apple to announce it.
There's a lot of behind the scenes pricing trickery.... Give a little here but add it on elsewhere. No wonder consumers are fooled into taking "great deals" that turn out not so great if you look closely at the total out-of-pocket.
It was also found that Apple wasn’t violating ang laws, which is why those suits were dropped.
...because IMO the Japan authority wanted to avoid resorting to a lawsuit to get Apple to eliminate any contractual clauses which could be violating antitrust law. Negotiation worked and a lawsuit to force it wasn't needed. Therefore it can be claimed by all the parties involved that Apple wasn't found to be violating any laws, that's is true, but because they changed their contract rather than playing it to the end and chance being legally tagged as a lawbreaker which doesn't play well in the media.
They never actually did break the law. The law is for companies that hold monopoly status, which Apple doesn’t have. They both agreed to step back. Apple made very minor changes to its contracts, and the government walked away.
In numbers current as of last month, Android owns 78% of the worldwide market. That number pretty much speaks for itself.
Errrnt, nope. That's just the nonsense of worshipping at the church of market share. Android isn't a company or even a product, it's a splintered code base out in the wild. The vast majority of its market share is provided by cheap chinese knockoffs that nobody even cares about.
Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up. It's feasting on the lion's share of meat while the rest of the android hyenas fight amongst themselves for scraps of leather and bone. "But there are more hyenas than lions!" Uhh yeah, so what??
Android is a product. No doubt about it.
iOS is also splintered, just not as much.
The vast majority of market share is not taken by your so-called Chinese knock-offs.
Uhm, you are aware that Apple will be supporting iOS 12 all the way back to the iPhone 5s which arrived in September 2013; essentially every 64 bit iPhone model. Not much "splintered" there compared to all of the unique models, UX's and UI's, forks, and bundled spyware, that as a generalization, defines Android OS devices.
Certainly, specific device makers do better than others as far as Android OS "splintering".
No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit, but it is certainly true that Apple retains most of the profits of hardware device makers. What you don't like to acknowledge, much anyway, is the acquisition costs that those same Chinese device makers have to sink in order to increase unit sales.
But, yeah, I'm not supposed to talk about ASP 'cause it hurts the consumer.
Uhm, yes I'm aware of that. It won't change what I said.
"No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit"
But they did, and it is one of the reasons I commented. You quoted it yourself. If you click on 'show previous quotes' you will see this:
"Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up"
You are correct, though.
ASP (you're talking specifically about high ASP) doesn't hurt (beyond burning a bigger hole in the pocket) the consumer. It is simply irrevelant to the consumer.
Lack of enough ASP for a device maker forces them to cobble up and install a heck of a lot of crap (malware, spyware, adware, sketchy services) on a device in order to generate a bit of revenue. Wouldn't you agree that might lead to a lesser user experience compared to, say, a Pixel 2?
I have said it many times. Most companies exist to make money. Very, very few aspire to make the most money.
The same applies to ASP.
You have people right here claiming 'but Apple makes the most money', 'Apple has the highest ASP', etc
My reply is 'and...?'
In the past I have given examples of companies that just want to provide a decent product at a decent price and do it profitably.
This particular industry has reached saturation point in the developed world, has seen slight contraction and consolidation. That is putting a squeeze on the smaller fish in the pond but there are still hundreds of companies making a profit even though some go out of business.
At the other end you have companies producing far better phones than even the iPhone X, at far lower prices, on much lower ASPs. Huawei invests 10% of its revenues each year in R&D and has more than 80,000 employees working in R&D around the globe. It counts profits in the billions but doesn't have the highest ASP. That R&D investment can lead to patents. Ironically, Apple licences a ton of patents to Apple. All this with a far lower ASP than Apple.
ASP is nice for investors. Consumers don't care. Perhaps they would care more if they were informed of how much of the purchase price went directly into Apple's tax free coffers and sat there for years on end.
You totally ignored the point of crapware as a substitute for revenue on low ASP models. That certainly has an effect on consumers, who likely care about malware, spyware, and adware, that comes with there "cheap" phone.
While I have innumerable Android handsets available to me in-store and online, I have yet to see any that jump out as the 'crapware' type that you mention.
If you had thought things through a little more, you may have resisted from posting that link. ;-)
It is mainly about phones that are returned -from retail. Unsold phones or phones returned to retail after initial sale. Not good.
It also states that a tiny percentage are sold abroad. Demand is high for lower priced iPhone X where phones such as the P20 Pro aren't as readily available. It might explain why I have only seen about three iPhone X in the wild since release in my neck of the woods.
That’s just wrong. Apple sells a lot of phones abroad, just not in the high percentage as the US, except for Japan.
From 2016 to now I would expect the Samsung Profit picture changed greatly because 2016 was the year of the exploding Notes and now Samsung gets a nice little extra profit on each iPhone X sold because of the OLED screen.
I used to like the HTC ONE M7 and M8 designs but never bought one because it would have meant using Android. I due remember that the phones were criticized for their Camera which is now one of the most important features of a phone.
Samsung has never made as much money on their fkagships as Apple because even though the list prices are the same, apparently, with the actual selling prices of Galaxy models, including the Note (which usually sells about 5-7 million a year, worldwide) being much lower, Samsung is squeezed by that. There is no way retailers are going to sell phones and can make no profit, so Samsung must be subsidizing those low prices.
Usually, after just a few weeks after they come out, Galaxy models are going for a buy one, get one for 50% off, and even a buy one and get one for free, or buy one and get a free Galaxy Tab 3 tablet. These are independent from the carriers who often bring in customers on 2 year contracts (yes, many people still do that) by giving a flagship phone at a big discount, or for “free” (it’s not).
these numbers don’t count the sales and profits from Samsung electronics parts sales. They’re exclusively from the selling of phones. It’s like counting iPad and Mac sales in iPhone sales numbers. No.
Mel, you might have missed news that Apple was requiring Japanese carriers to subsidize iPhones in order to keep prices artificially low and limit competitors ability to raise prices to a more profitable level. In Japan they've agreed to stop requiring it (among some other changes) to avoid an antitrust lawsuit. During the investigation it was determined that Apple had the same carrier rules mandating artificially low pricing in other regions including the US, and I've not seen anywhere that Apple was offering to eliminate that contractual requirement anywhere else tho they certainly could have. I wouldn't have expected Apple to announce it.
There's a lot of behind the scenes pricing trickery.... Give a little here but add it on elsewhere. No wonder consumers are fooled into taking "great deals" that turn out not so great if you look closely at the total out-of-pocket.
It was also found that Apple wasn’t violating ang laws, which is why those suits were dropped.
...because IMO the Japan authority wanted to avoid resorting to a lawsuit to get Apple to eliminate any contractual clauses which could be violating antitrust law. Negotiation worked and a lawsuit to force it wasn't needed. Therefore it can be claimed by all the parties involved that Apple wasn't found to be violating any laws, that's is true, but because they changed their contract rather than playing it to the end and chance being legally tagged as a lawbreaker which doesn't play well in the media.
They never actually did break the law. The law is for companies that hold monopoly status, which Apple doesn’t have. They both agreed to step back. Apple made very minor changes to its contracts, and the government walked away.
In numbers current as of last month, Android owns 78% of the worldwide market. That number pretty much speaks for itself.
Errrnt, nope. That's just the nonsense of worshipping at the church of market share. Android isn't a company or even a product, it's a splintered code base out in the wild. The vast majority of its market share is provided by cheap chinese knockoffs that nobody even cares about.
Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up. It's feasting on the lion's share of meat while the rest of the android hyenas fight amongst themselves for scraps of leather and bone. "But there are more hyenas than lions!" Uhh yeah, so what??
Android is a product. No doubt about it.
iOS is also splintered, just not as much.
The vast majority of market share is not taken by your so-called Chinese knock-offs.
Uhm, you are aware that Apple will be supporting iOS 12 all the way back to the iPhone 5s which arrived in September 2013; essentially every 64 bit iPhone model. Not much "splintered" there compared to all of the unique models, UX's and UI's, forks, and bundled spyware, that as a generalization, defines Android OS devices.
Certainly, specific device makers do better than others as far as Android OS "splintering".
No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit, but it is certainly true that Apple retains most of the profits of hardware device makers. What you don't like to acknowledge, much anyway, is the acquisition costs that those same Chinese device makers have to sink in order to increase unit sales.
But, yeah, I'm not supposed to talk about ASP 'cause it hurts the consumer.
Uhm, yes I'm aware of that. It won't change what I said.
"No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit"
But they did, and it is one of the reasons I commented. You quoted it yourself. If you click on 'show previous quotes' you will see this:
"Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up"
You are correct, though.
ASP (you're talking specifically about high ASP) doesn't hurt (beyond burning a bigger hole in the pocket) the consumer. It is simply irrevelant to the consumer.
Lack of enough ASP for a device maker forces them to cobble up and install a heck of a lot of crap (malware, spyware, adware, sketchy services) on a device in order to generate a bit of revenue. Wouldn't you agree that might lead to a lesser user experience compared to, say, a Pixel 2?
I have said it many times. Most companies exist to make money. Very, very few aspire to make the most money.
The same applies to ASP.
You have people right here claiming 'but Apple makes the most money', 'Apple has the highest ASP', etc
My reply is 'and...?'
In the past I have given examples of companies that just want to provide a decent product at a decent price and do it profitably.
This particular industry has reached saturation point in the developed world, has seen slight contraction and consolidation. That is putting a squeeze on the smaller fish in the pond but there are still hundreds of companies making a profit even though some go out of business.
At the other end you have companies producing far better phones than even the iPhone X, at far lower prices, on much lower ASPs. Huawei invests 10% of its revenues each year in R&D and has more than 80,000 employees working in R&D around the globe. It counts profits in the billions but doesn't have the highest ASP. That R&D investment can lead to patents. Ironically, Apple licences a ton of patents to Apple. All this with a far lower ASP than Apple.
ASP is nice for investors. Consumers don't care. Perhaps they would care more if they were informed of how much of the purchase price went directly into Apple's tax free coffers and sat there for years on end.
You totally ignored the point of crapware as a substitute for revenue on low ASP models. That certainly has an effect on consumers, who likely care about malware, spyware, and adware, that comes with there "cheap" phone.
While I have innumerable Android handsets available to me in-store and online, I have yet to see any that jump out as the 'crapware' type that you mention.
If you had thought things through a little more, you may have resisted from posting that link. ;-)
It is mainly about phones that are returned -from retail. Unsold phones or phones returned to retail after initial sale. Not good.
It also states that a tiny percentage are sold abroad. Demand is high for lower priced iPhone X where phones such as the P20 Pro aren't as readily available. It might explain why I have only seen about three iPhone X in the wild since release in my neck of the woods.
That’s just wrong. Apple sells a lot of phones abroad, just not in the high percentage as the US, except for Japan.
Could be. I am simply commenting on what was said and my own personal experience travelling around the city most of the day.
Not could be, definitely. Apple sells almost 65% of its products abroad. That’s fact, not supposition. What’s also fact is the the population of the US is what, about 6% of the worlds population? So selling most of their products outside of the US would result in you not seeing them nearly as much as in the US, except for a few countries whose iPhone percentage is higher than here, such as Australia and Japan, and GB, where it’s almost as high.
its pretty simpke
Remember that the article is specifically targeting the iPhone X as opposed to all iPhones:
"One reason for this is high domestic demand. While a significant percentage of iPhone models are sent overseas, the company says that almost all iPhone X models are sold within the USA, with just 2% being sold abroad"
As we have no information on model breakdowns I think it's a tough call. However, the article makes it clear that most iPhones ship overseas but then makes that claim on the iPhone X specifically.
I agree with you that it seems highly improbable or even outright wrong but without anything solid to go on (no official breakdown of model shipments) it difficult to know for sure.
If I were attending the conference call for next week's earnings call this would definitely be my question:
I hear that only 2 out of every 100 iPhone X are sold outside the US. What is the real split between US and international iPhone X sales?
Put that way, it just seems scandalously low.
It doesn’t sound right. In China alone, the iphoneX has 5% of the market, And has been the most popular smartphone there since it came out. Those are independent numbers that just came out. I have a terrible memory for names, so,I remember the facts, but not always where they come from. But it’s out there today. I read it in my Yahoo financial app.
In numbers current as of last month, Android owns 78% of the worldwide market. That number pretty much speaks for itself.
Errrnt, nope. That's just the nonsense of worshipping at the church of market share. Android isn't a company or even a product, it's a splintered code base out in the wild. The vast majority of its market share is provided by cheap chinese knockoffs that nobody even cares about.
Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up. It's feasting on the lion's share of meat while the rest of the android hyenas fight amongst themselves for scraps of leather and bone. "But there are more hyenas than lions!" Uhh yeah, so what??
Android is a product. No doubt about it.
iOS is also splintered, just not as much.
The vast majority of market share is not taken by your so-called Chinese knock-offs.
Uhm, you are aware that Apple will be supporting iOS 12 all the way back to the iPhone 5s which arrived in September 2013; essentially every 64 bit iPhone model. Not much "splintered" there compared to all of the unique models, UX's and UI's, forks, and bundled spyware, that as a generalization, defines Android OS devices.
Certainly, specific device makers do better than others as far as Android OS "splintering".
No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit, but it is certainly true that Apple retains most of the profits of hardware device makers. What you don't like to acknowledge, much anyway, is the acquisition costs that those same Chinese device makers have to sink in order to increase unit sales.
But, yeah, I'm not supposed to talk about ASP 'cause it hurts the consumer.
Uhm, yes I'm aware of that. It won't change what I said.
"No one ever stated that Apple owns ALL the profit"
But they did, and it is one of the reasons I commented. You quoted it yourself. If you click on 'show previous quotes' you will see this:
"Apple owns all the profit of the sector. It sucks it all up"
You are correct, though.
ASP (you're talking specifically about high ASP) doesn't hurt (beyond burning a bigger hole in the pocket) the consumer. It is simply irrevelant to the consumer.
Lack of enough ASP for a device maker forces them to cobble up and install a heck of a lot of crap (malware, spyware, adware, sketchy services) on a device in order to generate a bit of revenue. Wouldn't you agree that might lead to a lesser user experience compared to, say, a Pixel 2?
I have said it many times. Most companies exist to make money. Very, very few aspire to make the most money.
The same applies to ASP.
You have people right here claiming 'but Apple makes the most money', 'Apple has the highest ASP', etc
My reply is 'and...?'
In the past I have given examples of companies that just want to provide a decent product at a decent price and do it profitably.
This particular industry has reached saturation point in the developed world, has seen slight contraction and consolidation. That is putting a squeeze on the smaller fish in the pond but there are still hundreds of companies making a profit even though some go out of business.
At the other end you have companies producing far better phones than even the iPhone X, at far lower prices, on much lower ASPs. Huawei invests 10% of its revenues each year in R&D and has more than 80,000 employees working in R&D around the globe. It counts profits in the billions but doesn't have the highest ASP. That R&D investment can lead to patents. Ironically, Apple licences a ton of patents to Apple. All this with a far lower ASP than Apple.
ASP is nice for investors. Consumers don't care. Perhaps they would care more if they were informed of how much of the purchase price went directly into Apple's tax free coffers and sat there for years on end.
You totally ignored the point of crapware as a substitute for revenue on low ASP models. That certainly has an effect on consumers, who likely care about malware, spyware, and adware, that comes with there "cheap" phone.
While I have innumerable Android handsets available to me in-store and online, I have yet to see any that jump out as the 'crapware' type that you mention.
If you had thought things through a little more, you may have resisted from posting that link. ;-)
It is mainly about phones that are returned -from retail. Unsold phones or phones returned to retail after initial sale. Not good.
It also states that a tiny percentage are sold abroad. Demand is high for lower priced iPhone X where phones such as the P20 Pro aren't as readily available. It might explain why I have only seen about three iPhone X in the wild since release in my neck of the woods.
That’s just wrong. Apple sells a lot of phones abroad, just not in the high percentage as the US, except for Japan.
Could be. I am simply commenting on what was said and my own personal experience travelling around the city most of the day.
Not could be, definitely. Apple sells almost 65% of its products abroad. That’s fact, not supposition. What’s also fact is the the population of the US is what, about 6% of the worlds population? So selling most of their products outside of the US would result in you not seeing them nearly as much as in the US, except for a few countries whose iPhone percentage is higher than here, such as Australia and Japan, and GB, where it’s almost as high.
its pretty simpke
Remember that the article is specifically targeting the iPhone X as opposed to all iPhones:
"One reason for this is high domestic demand. While a significant percentage of iPhone models are sent overseas, the company says that almost all iPhone X models are sold within the USA, with just 2% being sold abroad"
As we have no information on model breakdowns I think it's a tough call. However, the article makes it clear that most iPhones ship overseas but then makes that claim on the iPhone X specifically.
I agree with you that it seems highly improbable or even outright wrong but without anything solid to go on (no official breakdown of model shipments) it difficult to know for sure.
If I were attending the conference call for next week's earnings call this would definitely be my question:
I hear that only 2 out of every 100 iPhone X are sold outside the US. What is the real split between US and international iPhone X sales?
Put that way, it just seems scandalously low.
It doesn’t sound right. In China alone, the iphoneX has 5% of the market, And has been the most popular smartphone there since it came out. Those are independent numbers that just came out. I have a terrible memory for names, so,I remember the facts, but not always where they come from. But it’s out there today. I read it in my Yahoo financial app.
Yeah, that was my niggle too. China. If the iPhone X was the top selling model in the world's biggest market, it just didn't seem right that only 2% of iPhone X were sold worldwide and the rest in the US.
The second link is far from nonsense and Huawei is signing deals all over the EU. Where have you seen spying allegations?
Melgross said:
the second one is just nonsense. It could have been written as “Head of company says accusations are false.” Whoopie. That proves nothing. Also the EU is working on a ban of their products because of spying problems.
The main point is that Huawei is literally everywhere at every single point in world communications infrastructure. Even in the US, entire communities depend on Huawei infrastructure. They have thousands upon thousands of Km of marine communications cabling all over the world, internet switches, routers, data centres, cloud infrastructure and a massive 4G and 5G patent portfolio.
With all that currently deployed all over the world, the only thing anyone has been able to put on the table are 'suspicions'. Not a shred of evidence and Huawei has answered everything that has been asked of it.
China is a very patriotic country. They are extremely proud of Huawei. Even the slightest amount of evidence of spying would literally kill the company overnight.
Why would a company run the risk of completely destroying itself on such a charge when the US government is relentless in its efforts to get spyware onto communications gear (and that, ironically of course, includes Huawei gear as well as everybody else's) and the Chinese, Russians, British etc can do exactly the same?
It is technically impossible for any nation to have international communications without using international infrastructure and that means Huawei. Whatever you do, you will end up using shared infrastructure. Banning a company that says it isn't doing anything wrong won't stop large parts of your communications travelling over its infrastruture.
Now, speaking of actual evidence (which is never forthcoming), Snowden has not only pulled back the curtain on US activities but put a magnifying glass on much of it. Operation Shotgiant is very relevant here.
The underlying question remains. Why would one of the largest communications companies in the world run the risk of self destruction by spying for a government that could probably get any information just as easily as the NSA?
I dont care much for predictions like that, as they’re almost always wrong. Remember, just a few months ago it was being said that the iphoneX was a flop, and sales were predicted to be very low, and dropping fast. Well, that was totally wrong.
The second link is far from nonsense and Huawei is signing deals all over the EU. Where have you seen spying allegations?
Melgross said:
the second one is just nonsense. It could have been written as “Head of company says accusations are false.” Whoopie. That proves nothing. Also the EU is working on a ban of their products because of spying problems.
The main point is that Huawei is literally everywhere at every single point in world communications infrastructure. Even in the US, entire communities depend on Huawei infrastructure. They have thousands upon thousands of Km of marine communications cabling all over the world, internet switches, routers, data centres, cloud infrastructure and a massive 4G and 5G patent portfolio.
With all that currently deployed all over the world, the only thing anyone has been able to put on the table are 'suspicions'. Not a shred of evidence and Huawei has answered everything that has been asked of it.
China is a very patriotic country. They are extremely proud of Huawei. Even the slightest amount of evidence of spying would literally kill the company overnight.
Why would a company run the risk of completely destroying itself on such a charge when the US government is relentless in its efforts to get spyware onto communications gear (and that, ironically of course, includes Huawei gear as well as everybody else's) and the Chinese, Russians, British etc can do exactly the same?
It is technically impossible for any nation to have international communications without using international infrastructure and that means Huawei. Whatever you do, you will end up using shared infrastructure. Banning a company that says it isn't doing anything wrong won't stop large parts of your communications travelling over its infrastruture.
Now, speaking of actual evidence (which is never forthcoming), Snowden has not only pulled back the curtain on US activities but put a magnifying glass on much of it. Operation Shotgiant is very relevant here.
The underlying question remains. Why would one of the largest communications companies in the world run the risk of self destruction by spying for a government that could probably get any information just as easily as the NSA?
Yes, we know they are a big company. Nevertheless the EU is considering banning them in a number of areas for spying. Really, I dont care about the company denying anything. After all, what would you expect? The Chinese government has been implicated in spy activities here, and I won’t even argue the point with you on that.
The second link is far from nonsense and Huawei is signing deals all over the EU. Where have you seen spying allegations?
Melgross said:
the second one is just nonsense. It could have been written as “Head of company says accusations are false.” Whoopie. That proves nothing. Also the EU is working on a ban of their products because of spying problems.
The main point is that Huawei is literally everywhere at every single point in world communications infrastructure. Even in the US, entire communities depend on Huawei infrastructure. They have thousands upon thousands of Km of marine communications cabling all over the world, internet switches, routers, data centres, cloud infrastructure and a massive 4G and 5G patent portfolio.
With all that currently deployed all over the world, the only thing anyone has been able to put on the table are 'suspicions'. Not a shred of evidence and Huawei has answered everything that has been asked of it.
China is a very patriotic country. They are extremely proud of Huawei. Even the slightest amount of evidence of spying would literally kill the company overnight.
Why would a company run the risk of completely destroying itself on such a charge when the US government is relentless in its efforts to get spyware onto communications gear (and that, ironically of course, includes Huawei gear as well as everybody else's) and the Chinese, Russians, British etc can do exactly the same?
It is technically impossible for any nation to have international communications without using international infrastructure and that means Huawei. Whatever you do, you will end up using shared infrastructure. Banning a company that says it isn't doing anything wrong won't stop large parts of your communications travelling over its infrastruture.
Now, speaking of actual evidence (which is never forthcoming), Snowden has not only pulled back the curtain on US activities but put a magnifying glass on much of it. Operation Shotgiant is very relevant here.
The underlying question remains. Why would one of the largest communications companies in the world run the risk of self destruction by spying for a government that could probably get any information just as easily as the NSA?
Yes, we know they are a big company. Nevertheless the EU is considering banning them in a number of areas for spying. Really, I dont care about the company denying anything. After all, what would you expect? The Chinese government has been implicated in spy activities here, and I won’t even argue the point with you on that.
Given the accusations/suspicions, I would expect some evidence of wrongdoing.
Governments spy. Pretty much any of them that have the ability, use it. Even when they say they don't.
Huawei is not the Chinese government and even if it were, it would be literally impossible to avoid running communications over infrastructure built, managed or deployed by Chinese companies.
Not sure where the EU and Huawei have any problems beyond the habitual security issues. BTW, the EU wants to have an EU designed and built processor range to reduce dependence and risks derived from outside technology (that includes the US). This is a nice summary but unfortunately it's in Spanish:
I dont care much for predictions like that, as they’re almost always wrong. Remember, just a few months ago it was being said that the iphoneX was a flop, and sales were predicted to be very low, and dropping fast. Well, that was totally wrong.
Yes, that's true and why I try to limit examples to Counterpoint, Canalys and Kantar, as those three are regularly referenced by AI.
Comments
"One reason for this is high domestic demand. While a significant percentage of iPhone models are sent overseas, the company says that almost all iPhone X models are sold within the USA, with just 2% being sold abroad"
As we have no information on model breakdowns I think it's a tough call. However, the article makes it clear that most iPhones ship overseas but then makes that claim on the iPhone X specifically.
I agree with you that it seems highly improbable or even outright wrong but without anything solid to go on (no official breakdown of model shipments) it difficult to know for sure.
If I were attending the conference call for next week's earnings call this would definitely be my question:
I hear that only 2 out of every 100 iPhone X are sold outside the US. What is the real split between US and international iPhone X sales?
Put that way, it just seems scandalously low.
the second one is just nonsense. It could have been written as “Head of company says accusations are false.” Whoopie. That proves nothing. Also the EU is working on a ban of their products because of spying problems.
ill continue this post as I read the links.
the third is in dispute. There has been evidence that what the company is saying isn’t true. They are able to use what amounts to a guarantee of that money to get credit lines to suppliers, credit lines they otherwise wouldn’t be able to obtain. That’s without using a single Yuan of that money.
i couldn’t get to the pdf. I waited almost 2 minutes, it it never got there. I’ll try again later.
i don’t particularly have a problem with them giving money to universities for research if, as they say, all of it is openly published in recognized journals. These days, corporate money in research is common. Too common, I think, as government funding for research is severely cut back, which is just wrong. The university gets the patents that resul, if any, and then license them, usually, to the corporate sponsor. This is also common.
i don’t agree about the P20, because a number of those features aren’t quite what they’re represented as being. The face recognition is zippy, but. Not secure. The behind the screen fingerprint sensor works, most of the time. But if Apple’s worker that “well” they would be criticized over it. The camera is good, but the three lenses, so far, have not been shown to be much more than a gimmick.
the price goes back to what we’re arguing about. They have to show that they aren’t actually losing money on this, which they are believed to be.
as one writer observed, and no, he wasn’t from some Apple publication, Android phones are reviewed on a curve. Problems are usually given short thrift, while minor advances are given paragraphs. Apple’s products are reviewed much more critically, with every tiny problem blown up out of proportion. There is a definite bias in the media towards Google and Android. Even AndroudCentral is sometimes surprised at it.
https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/11/apple-alters-contracts-comply-japans-antitrust-laws/
If the law only applied to monopolies there wouldn't have been an investigation in the first place.
https://www.canalys.com/newsroom/huawei-breaks-record-for-biggest-ever-share-in-china-with-27-of-smartphone-market-in-q2?campaignname=huaweiq2
The main point is that Huawei is literally everywhere at every single point in world communications infrastructure. Even in the US, entire communities depend on Huawei infrastructure. They have thousands upon thousands of Km of marine communications cabling all over the world, internet switches, routers, data centres, cloud infrastructure and a massive 4G and 5G patent portfolio.
With all that currently deployed all over the world, the only thing anyone has been able to put on the table are 'suspicions'. Not a shred of evidence and Huawei has answered everything that has been asked of it.
China is a very patriotic country. They are extremely proud of Huawei. Even the slightest amount of evidence of spying would literally kill the company overnight.
Why would a company run the risk of completely destroying itself on such a charge when the US government is relentless in its efforts to get spyware onto communications gear (and that, ironically of course, includes Huawei gear as well as everybody else's) and the Chinese, Russians, British etc can do exactly the same?
It is technically impossible for any nation to have international communications without using international infrastructure and that means Huawei. Whatever you do, you will end up using shared infrastructure. Banning a company that says it isn't doing anything wrong won't stop large parts of your communications travelling over its infrastruture.
Now, speaking of actual evidence (which is never forthcoming), Snowden has not only pulled back the curtain on US activities but put a magnifying glass on much of it. Operation Shotgiant is very relevant here.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/world/asia/nsa-breached-chinese-servers-seen-as-spy-peril.html
That link you are commenting on was just one that shared a common sentiment. This is another.
https://thenextweb.com/contributors/2018/06/16/our-paranoia-over-huawei-and-chinese-tech-is-misplaced/
The underlying question remains. Why would one of the largest communications companies in the world run the risk of self destruction by spying for a government that could probably get any information just as easily as the NSA?
Yes, we know they are a big company. Nevertheless the EU is considering banning them in a number of areas for spying. Really, I dont care about the company denying anything. After all, what would you expect? The Chinese government has been implicated in spy activities here, and I won’t even argue the point with you on that.
Governments spy. Pretty much any of them that have the ability, use it. Even when they say they don't.
Huawei is not the Chinese government and even if it were, it would be literally impossible to avoid running communications over infrastructure built, managed or deployed by Chinese companies.
Not sure where the EU and Huawei have any problems beyond the habitual security issues. BTW, the EU wants to have an EU designed and built processor range to reduce dependence and risks derived from outside technology (that includes the US). This is a nice summary but unfortunately it's in Spanish:
https://www.lavanguardia.com/ciencia/fisica-espacio/20171214/433617192107/proyecto-chip-europeo-barcelona.html
For Huawei in EU:
https://technode.com/2018/04/19/huawei-5g-eu/
Huawei is also a full member of 5G-PPP
https://5g-ppp.eu/about-us/