I simply do not trust the version Apple and Intel have been pushing about Qualcomm.
It seems quite clear now that there is more to this story than Apple and its supporters have been promoting.
I suspect the motive for this lawsuit is about having Qualcomm pushed aside so Apple and Intel can get in on the business.
Apple and Intel have been promoting alot of negative PR on Qualcomm to get the public onside.
The truth is being lost so that Apple and Intel can get their way.
What about Samsung, and Huawei, and MediTek, and LG? And all the regulatory bodies which have investigated Qualcomm and found wrongdoing?
At this point, it's hard to defend Qualcomm's behavior. You pretty much have to believe that essentially the entire industry is lying about Qualcomm's actions or you have to ignore what that industry has been saying. And you have to believe that a half dozen different regulatory bodies have been fooled by the industry into believing things which aren't true. Even if we only accept as true those things which Qualcomm admits to or doesn't deny, it's hard to defend Qualcomm's behavior. It has behaved egregiously, and not just when it comes to Apple.
Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
One company out of many, 62% of all profits. Still not losing.
Who spoke of losing? Or winning for that matter!
If we are going to spout numbers, isn't it reasonable to expect valid numbers?
Apple, over four quarters, typically gains over 80% of the profits in the smartphone industry. You chose a single quarter, which is not a sufficient indicator for a yearly calculated metric. Samsung picks up about 10%, and the rest is split amongst the other players.
Maybe that is changing, but I doubt it.
Either way, a company, Apple, with some 15% to 18% of total smartphone marketshare worldwide for the year, is doing pretty well.
Yeah, its those ASP's and margins that are behind Apple being able to do this, year after year.
I didn't 'choose' one quarter. I simply mentioned the last data point I had seen which happened to be for one quarter.
Given that Android had a great - year - pushing into higher price bands throughout 2018 and Apple has announced a rocky iPhone start to 2019, I think it may even end up lower than 80% for the year.
Either way, and as far as I can see, the 90-100% seems off to me.
You "chose" to post that data point, so yeah, you "chose" one quarter, and since you didn't post a link, it's just anecdotal.
"Given that Android has had a great year"
Evidence of that please, and not just Huawei data. Android device sales are flat, and LG and Samsung just got hammered. What makes you think that Huawei, with its "great" unit sales, didn't have high marketing and acquisition costs that effected their revenue and profit?
'Great' in the sense that since 2017 most of Android's top manufacturers have increased prices and pushed into higher bands with success. That carried over into 2018.
Huawei, Honor, Samsung, Oppo, Vivo, OnePlus etc. With each passing quarter, new, higher priced flagships have appeared. They now have price bands for all budgets.
I am not talking about 'unit sales' in a general sense but specifically the progress Android manufacturers have made in entering higher bands.
Obviously Huawei is blazing a trail at the moment but in terms of higher priced terminals, it is clear that just about all the major Android manufacturers have moved up a level with regards to pricing.
That will possibly allow them to gain more of the overall profit available.
"it is clear" but, again, no data, and "moved up a level", which is increasing ASP, in case you didn't make that connection, doesn't necessarily mean increasing margins.
But now it's okay to talk about ASP...finally...
ASP means nothing - to consumers!
In this case we are talking about industry profits in relation to Apple's proportion. It doesn't mean anything either - which I made clear in the very first post!
All I am doing is looking at the 90-100% claim, which still hasn't been substantiated in any way, and raising some major eyebrows.
The whole point of who has the most profits is moot if most of them aren't actually used for anything at all.
If Apple makes 100€ profit and sticks 90€ in an off shore account for a decade, it doesn't benefit consumers as much less than 10€ is used for further product development.
If Huawei makes 20€ profit and reserves 5€, it leaves less than 15€ for further product development but more than Apple.
Simplified in the extreme, this is pretty much reality. Huawei is doing FAR more than Apple with far less of of the profit pie.
Better products, more innovation and higher investment in R&D.
Not only that but Huawei's consumer business unit not only announced that they broke through the 100 billion USD revenue mark and sold over 200,000,000 handsets but that it also sold over a 100,000,000 non-handset devices. Another record for that business unit.
As is patently evident, not having the highest ASP or highest revenues or highest profits, has had ZERO impact on its ability to do amazing business while besting Apple along the way in R&D efforts too.
Anyone wishing to wave the revenue/profits flag really should look at Apple's amassed cash and reflect a little.
Huawei's Consumer Business segment doesn't do anywhere near $100 billion in revenue annually.
That said, yes, Apple's share of smartphone operating profits doesn't seem to be in the 90-100% range anymore. Canaccord Genuity put it at around 80% for 2017. That seems about right to me based on what Apple, Samsung, and Huawei have reported. Apple's December quarter share might approach 90% though.
EDIT: I'd add, regarding amassed cash... Huawei is amassing a fair bit of cash itself. Huawei doesn't make nearly as much profit as Apple does, so it of course can't amass cash as fast as Apple has in the past. But as of the end of 2017, Huawei's net cash position relative to its annual net income was similar to that of Apple.
Yes, my bad Carnegie. The 100 billion USD is for the business as a whole.
Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
One company out of many, 62% of all profits. Still not losing.
Who spoke of losing? Or winning for that matter!
If we are going to spout numbers, isn't it reasonable to expect valid numbers?
The real question is, which is the key point? The fact of Apple’s changing, but for a long time majority, share of all profits? Or the fact that gaining the majority share of all profits is not exactly losing, which was the point the earlier poster made, regardless of whether you ever mentioned winning or losing. He made a point and the point remains valid. The rest, the fact that Apple at one time was reported to make over 90% of profits but lately is reported to make 62%, is mere distraction, noise in the signal. Both numbers are meaningful when speaking about a single company with minority global market share in a sector filled with many competitors. It strongly suggests that one company is doing something right, in a big way.
Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
Who was how much of the other 38%? Please give us a link.
No idea. Is it important who has it or is it important to substantiate the original claim?
If it is 90-100%, let's see it backed up at least, because 62% is a long way off 90% and, as I made clear, 62% was the one I saw.
LOL.
Yours posts are a joke.
You have lost me. What was the whole point of your own post, then?
After all the flustering, are we now to assume that the 90-100% was just wishful thinking? Pure invention?
Maybe it wasn't but it definitely didn't tie in very well with what I had seen (62% Q2-18). Do you have a number you can point to?
Avon, when you have to take the discussion off on a minor point so far removed from the key point being made, that’s when you know you’re grasping at straws. It’s not flattering, kinda hard to watch actually. But maybe some are fooled. Credit to you if you rope a few in.
I simply do not trust the version Apple and Intel have been pushing about Qualcomm.
It seems quite clear now that there is more to this story than Apple and its supporters have been promoting.
I suspect the motive for this lawsuit is about having Qualcomm pushed aside so Apple and Intel can get in on the business.
Apple and Intel have been promoting alot of negative PR on Qualcomm to get the public onside.
The truth is being lost so that Apple and Intel can get their way.
Are you sure Apple and Intel are pushing negative PR? It’s certainly not Apple’s style. Usually they remain mum. But pushing back... on that I’ll agree. Apple has certainly pushed back against the huge amount of negative PR Qualcomm has been spinning against them.
Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
One company out of many, 62% of all profits. Still not losing.
Who spoke of losing? Or winning for that matter!
If we are going to spout numbers, isn't it reasonable to expect valid numbers?
Apple, over four quarters, typically gains over 80% of the profits in the smartphone industry. You chose a single quarter, which is not a sufficient indicator for a yearly calculated metric. Samsung picks up about 10%, and the rest is split amongst the other players.
Maybe that is changing, but I doubt it.
Either way, a company, Apple, with some 15% to 18% of total smartphone marketshare worldwide for the year, is doing pretty well.
Yeah, its those ASP's and margins that are behind Apple being able to do this, year after year.
I didn't 'choose' one quarter. I simply mentioned the last data point I had seen which happened to be for one quarter.
Given that Android had a great - year - pushing into higher price bands throughout 2018 and Apple has announced a rocky iPhone start to 2019, I think it may even end up lower than 80% for the year.
Either way, and as far as I can see, the 90-100% seems off to me.
You "chose" to post that data point, so yeah, you "chose" one quarter, and since you didn't post a link, it's just anecdotal.
"Given that Android has had a great year"
Evidence of that please, and not just Huawei data. Android device sales are flat, and LG and Samsung just got hammered. What makes you think that Huawei, with its "great" unit sales, didn't have high marketing and acquisition costs that effected their revenue and profit?
'Great' in the sense that since 2017 most of Android's top manufacturers have increased prices and pushed into higher bands with success. That carried over into 2018.
Huawei, Honor, Samsung, Oppo, Vivo, OnePlus etc. With each passing quarter, new, higher priced flagships have appeared. They now have price bands for all budgets.
I am not talking about 'unit sales' in a general sense but specifically the progress Android manufacturers have made in entering higher bands.
Obviously Huawei is blazing a trail at the moment but in terms of higher priced terminals, it is clear that just about all the major Android manufacturers have moved up a level with regards to pricing.
That will possibly allow them to gain more of the overall profit available.
I contend it may help Apple. Higher priced Androids invite a comparison to iPhones; if I’m shopping $250 Androids, I’m not seeing any iPhone models across the isle to compare them too, but if I’m shopping $850 Androids, I sure will give some time to look at an iPhone. I’m confident Apple is going to do well in that comparison.
Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
One company out of many, 62% of all profits. Still not losing.
Who spoke of losing? Or winning for that matter!
If we are going to spout numbers, isn't it reasonable to expect valid numbers?
Apple, over four quarters, typically gains over 80% of the profits in the smartphone industry. You chose a single quarter, which is not a sufficient indicator for a yearly calculated metric. Samsung picks up about 10%, and the rest is split amongst the other players.
Maybe that is changing, but I doubt it.
Either way, a company, Apple, with some 15% to 18% of total smartphone marketshare worldwide for the year, is doing pretty well.
Yeah, its those ASP's and margins that are behind Apple being able to do this, year after year.
I didn't 'choose' one quarter. I simply mentioned the last data point I had seen which happened to be for one quarter.
Given that Android had a great - year - pushing into higher price bands throughout 2018 and Apple has announced a rocky iPhone start to 2019, I think it may even end up lower than 80% for the year.
Either way, and as far as I can see, the 90-100% seems off to me.
You "chose" to post that data point, so yeah, you "chose" one quarter, and since you didn't post a link, it's just anecdotal.
"Given that Android has had a great year"
Evidence of that please, and not just Huawei data. Android device sales are flat, and LG and Samsung just got hammered. What makes you think that Huawei, with its "great" unit sales, didn't have high marketing and acquisition costs that effected their revenue and profit?
'Great' in the sense that since 2017 most of Android's top manufacturers have increased prices and pushed into higher bands with success. That carried over into 2018.
Huawei, Honor, Samsung, Oppo, Vivo, OnePlus etc. With each passing quarter, new, higher priced flagships have appeared. They now have price bands for all budgets.
I am not talking about 'unit sales' in a general sense but specifically the progress Android manufacturers have made in entering higher bands.
Obviously Huawei is blazing a trail at the moment but in terms of higher priced terminals, it is clear that just about all the major Android manufacturers have moved up a level with regards to pricing.
That will possibly allow them to gain more of the overall profit available.
"it is clear" but, again, no data, and "moved up a level", which is increasing ASP, in case you didn't make that connection, doesn't necessarily mean increasing margins.
But now it's okay to talk about ASP...finally...
ASP means nothing - to consumers!
In this case we are talking about industry profits in relation to Apple's proportion. It doesn't mean anything either - which I made clear in the very first post!
All I am doing is looking at the 90-100% claim, which still hasn't been substantiated in any way, and raising some major eyebrows.
The whole point of who has the most profits is moot if most of them aren't actually used for anything at all.
If Apple makes 100€ profit and sticks 90€ in an off shore account for a decade, it doesn't benefit consumers as much less than 10€ is used for further product development.
If Huawei makes 20€ profit and reserves 5€, it leaves less than 15€ for further product development but more than Apple.
Simplified in the extreme, this is pretty much reality. Huawei is doing FAR more than Apple with far less of of the profit pie.
Better products, more innovation and higher investment in R&D.
Not only that but Huawei's consumer business unit not only announced that they broke through the 100 billion USD revenue mark and sold over 200,000,000 handsets but that it also sold over a 100,000,000 non-handset devices. Another record for that business unit.
As is patently evident, not having the highest ASP or highest revenues or highest profits, has had ZERO impact on its ability to do amazing business while besting Apple along the way in R&D efforts too.
Anyone wishing to wave the revenue/profits flag really should look at Apple's amassed cash and reflect a little.
Huawei's Consumer Business segment doesn't do anywhere near $100 billion in revenue annually.
That said, yes, Apple's share of smartphone operating profits doesn't seem to be in the 90-100% range anymore. Canaccord Genuity put it at around 80% for 2017. That seems about right to me based on what Apple, Samsung, and Huawei have reported. Apple's December quarter share might approach 90% though.
EDIT: I'd add, regarding amassed cash... Huawei is amassing a fair bit of cash itself. Huawei doesn't make nearly as much profit as Apple does, so it of course can't amass cash as fast as Apple has in the past. But as of the end of 2017, Huawei's net cash position relative to its annual net income was similar to that of Apple.
Yes, my bad Carnegie. The 100 billion USD is for the business as a whole.
"“One thing is clear: this is another nail in the coffin of Huawei’s European ambitions,” said Thorsten Benner, director of the Global Public Policy Institute, a think tank."
It sounds like Mr. Mollenkopf doesn't know his a$$ from a whole in the ground. Qualcomm has been in the business of gaining exclusivity through rebates. It has been documented several times by different Android manufacturers throughout the years. When I heard Huawei was being interviewed as part of the FTC's investigation, I knew Qualcomm would be in hot water. Huawei has done a great job documenting how Qualcomm attempted to gain exclusivity through these rebates (they called them financial bribes).
Huawei and Lenovo are both on record stating Qualcomm has in the past threatened retaliation against them if they attempted to challenge Qualcomm's legal terms by either delaying, or cutting off supply of chips.
Qulcomm's refusal to license their patents is another dangerous game they are playing since most consider their patent holdings to be standard-essential patents. This is a clear violation of FRAND.
It takes a company like Apple to stand up to a company like Qualcomm and personally I am glad to see it happen. I'm sure many of the other OEM's who cannot sustain a fight against Qualcomm (or are unwilling to) are glad to see it as well, which can be confirmed by the support Apple is receiving by many of it's competitors (Samsung, Huawei, Lenovo, ZTE, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Intel, Sprint).
You make the point well; that if the same rebates for exclusivity have been cut with multiple smartphone vendors, it’s more likely that it’s Qualcomm pushing this arrangement than it would be that each smartphone vendor happened to decide on its own to demand a large rebate, out of the blue, thus prompting Qualcomm to think up the idea of requiring exclusivity as a reaction to the rebate demand. Common sense.
The issue of rebate isn't as important as the offer of exclusivity. Perhaps it won't matter anyway. Wrong is wrong no matter who proposed it.
FWIW Mr Mueller whose opinion and articles have been mentioned a few times in this thread already believes it was likely Apple who offered to deal exclusively with Qualcomm in return for a lower royalty. He thinks Apple is being disingenuous by saying they've always wanted to have multiple suppliers and leaving the impression it was Qualcomm saying that wasn't going to happen.
From FossPatents:
It's furthermore undisputed (because even a Qualcomm witness said so) that Qualcomm told Apple, in my words: if you want a better deal, you have to give us something of value...
Apple: We want a better deal. Not those cutthroat terms. (Discount or incentive payments--just a better deal on the bottom line.)
Qualcomm: Only if you give us something of value to us. (Such as a volume commitment.)
Apple: Well, how about exclusivity?
Qualcomm: We'd prefer a volume commitment. But exclusivity can also work.
He then goes on to say "Now, what does this mean for the legal case? With a jury, it could have huge psychological impact. Blame-shifting in the eyes of some laypeople. But remember, this is a bench trial."
Still sounds like conjecture. Note that there aren’t any quotes around those statements attributed to each party. That’s the giveaway that nobody is able to definitively argue that Apple requested exclusivity. My point, which I think I made clearly, was one of Occam’s Razor. The evidence suggests it likely was a fixture of Qualcomm deals.
Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
One company out of many, 62% of all profits. Still not losing.
Who spoke of losing? Or winning for that matter!
If we are going to spout numbers, isn't it reasonable to expect valid numbers?
Apple, over four quarters, typically gains over 80% of the profits in the smartphone industry. You chose a single quarter, which is not a sufficient indicator for a yearly calculated metric. Samsung picks up about 10%, and the rest is split amongst the other players.
Maybe that is changing, but I doubt it.
Either way, a company, Apple, with some 15% to 18% of total smartphone marketshare worldwide for the year, is doing pretty well.
Yeah, its those ASP's and margins that are behind Apple being able to do this, year after year.
I didn't 'choose' one quarter. I simply mentioned the last data point I had seen which happened to be for one quarter.
Given that Android had a great - year - pushing into higher price bands throughout 2018 and Apple has announced a rocky iPhone start to 2019, I think it may even end up lower than 80% for the year.
Either way, and as far as I can see, the 90-100% seems off to me.
You "chose" to post that data point, so yeah, you "chose" one quarter, and since you didn't post a link, it's just anecdotal.
"Given that Android has had a great year"
Evidence of that please, and not just Huawei data. Android device sales are flat, and LG and Samsung just got hammered. What makes you think that Huawei, with its "great" unit sales, didn't have high marketing and acquisition costs that effected their revenue and profit?
'Great' in the sense that since 2017 most of Android's top manufacturers have increased prices and pushed into higher bands with success. That carried over into 2018.
Huawei, Honor, Samsung, Oppo, Vivo, OnePlus etc. With each passing quarter, new, higher priced flagships have appeared. They now have price bands for all budgets.
I am not talking about 'unit sales' in a general sense but specifically the progress Android manufacturers have made in entering higher bands.
Obviously Huawei is blazing a trail at the moment but in terms of higher priced terminals, it is clear that just about all the major Android manufacturers have moved up a level with regards to pricing.
That will possibly allow them to gain more of the overall profit available.
"it is clear" but, again, no data, and "moved up a level", which is increasing ASP, in case you didn't make that connection, doesn't necessarily mean increasing margins.
But now it's okay to talk about ASP...finally...
ASP means nothing - to consumers!
In this case we are talking about industry profits in relation to Apple's proportion. It doesn't mean anything either - which I made clear in the very first post!
All I am doing is looking at the 90-100% claim, which still hasn't been substantiated in any way, and raising some major eyebrows.
The whole point of who has the most profits is moot if most of them aren't actually used for anything at all.
If Apple makes 100€ profit and sticks 90€ in an off shore account for a decade, it doesn't benefit consumers as much less than 10€ is used for further product development.
If Huawei makes 20€ profit and reserves 5€, it leaves less than 15€ for further product development but more than Apple.
Simplified in the extreme, this is pretty much reality. Huawei is doing FAR more than Apple with far less of of the profit pie.
Better products, more innovation and higher investment in R&D.
Not only that but Huawei's consumer business unit not only announced that they broke through the 100 billion USD revenue mark and sold over 200,000,000 handsets but that it also sold over a 100,000,000 non-handset devices. Another record for that business unit.
As is patently evident, not having the highest ASP or highest revenues or highest profits, has had ZERO impact on its ability to do amazing business while besting Apple along the way in R&D efforts too.
Anyone wishing to wave the revenue/profits flag really should look at Apple's amassed cash and reflect a little.
You speak of consumers, what’s good for them. Then you attempt to make a case that Huawei is somehow putting more into R&D than Apple, but you neglect to mention that Hauwei has other businesses that demand some of that R&D. So what’s the numbers when you compare iPhone R&D to Hauwei smartphone R&D. You don’t know. You’re just blowing hot air, aren’t you?
Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
One company out of many, 62% of all profits. Still not losing.
Who spoke of losing? Or winning for that matter!
If we are going to spout numbers, isn't it reasonable to expect valid numbers?
Apple, over four quarters, typically gains over 80% of the profits in the smartphone industry. You chose a single quarter, which is not a sufficient indicator for a yearly calculated metric. Samsung picks up about 10%, and the rest is split amongst the other players.
Maybe that is changing, but I doubt it.
Either way, a company, Apple, with some 15% to 18% of total smartphone marketshare worldwide for the year, is doing pretty well.
Yeah, its those ASP's and margins that are behind Apple being able to do this, year after year.
I didn't 'choose' one quarter. I simply mentioned the last data point I had seen which happened to be for one quarter.
Given that Android had a great - year - pushing into higher price bands throughout 2018 and Apple has announced a rocky iPhone start to 2019, I think it may even end up lower than 80% for the year.
Either way, and as far as I can see, the 90-100% seems off to me.
You "chose" to post that data point, so yeah, you "chose" one quarter, and since you didn't post a link, it's just anecdotal.
"Given that Android has had a great year"
Evidence of that please, and not just Huawei data. Android device sales are flat, and LG and Samsung just got hammered. What makes you think that Huawei, with its "great" unit sales, didn't have high marketing and acquisition costs that effected their revenue and profit?
'Great' in the sense that since 2017 most of Android's top manufacturers have increased prices and pushed into higher bands with success. That carried over into 2018.
Huawei, Honor, Samsung, Oppo, Vivo, OnePlus etc. With each passing quarter, new, higher priced flagships have appeared. They now have price bands for all budgets.
I am not talking about 'unit sales' in a general sense but specifically the progress Android manufacturers have made in entering higher bands.
Obviously Huawei is blazing a trail at the moment but in terms of higher priced terminals, it is clear that just about all the major Android manufacturers have moved up a level with regards to pricing.
That will possibly allow them to gain more of the overall profit available.
"it is clear" but, again, no data, and "moved up a level", which is increasing ASP, in case you didn't make that connection, doesn't necessarily mean increasing margins.
But now it's okay to talk about ASP...finally...
ASP means nothing - to consumers!
In this case we are talking about industry profits in relation to Apple's proportion. It doesn't mean anything either - which I made clear in the very first post!
All I am doing is looking at the 90-100% claim, which still hasn't been substantiated in any way, and raising some major eyebrows.
The whole point of who has the most profits is moot if most of them aren't actually used for anything at all.
If Apple makes 100€ profit and sticks 90€ in an off shore account for a decade, it doesn't benefit consumers as much less than 10€ is used for further product development.
If Huawei makes 20€ profit and reserves 5€, it leaves less than 15€ for further product development but more than Apple.
Simplified in the extreme, this is pretty much reality. Huawei is doing FAR more than Apple with far less of of the profit pie.
Better products, more innovation and higher investment in R&D.
Not only that but Huawei's consumer business unit not only announced that they broke through the 100 billion USD revenue mark and sold over 200,000,000 handsets but that it also sold over a 100,000,000 non-handset devices. Another record for that business unit.
As is patently evident, not having the highest ASP or highest revenues or highest profits, has had ZERO impact on its ability to do amazing business while besting Apple along the way in R&D efforts too.
Anyone wishing to wave the revenue/profits flag really should look at Apple's amassed cash and reflect a little.
You speak of consumers, what’s good for them. Then you attempt to make a case that Huawei is somehow putting more into R&D than Apple, but you neglect to mention that Hauwei has other businesses that demand some of that R&D. So what’s the numbers when you compare iPhone R&D to Hauwei smartphone R&D. You don’t know. You’re just blowing hot air, aren’t you?
Of course not. Just take a look at the phones they have released of late - across all price bands - as they agressively push innovation down to the lower bands.
The results are already out there for you to experience yourself.
One of my Apple criticisms from a business approach perspective is the lack of dynamism in its release cycle. In part, this lack of dynamism and iterative product releases has left its newest phones looking less attractive in China during its peak quarter. I can assure you that if they appear less attractive today, they will not have an easier time by the time MWC2019 comes around, and that is next month!
It sounds like Mr. Mollenkopf doesn't know his a$$ from a whole in the ground. Qualcomm has been in the business of gaining exclusivity through rebates. It has been documented several times by different Android manufacturers throughout the years. When I heard Huawei was being interviewed as part of the FTC's investigation, I knew Qualcomm would be in hot water. Huawei has done a great job documenting how Qualcomm attempted to gain exclusivity through these rebates (they called them financial bribes).
Huawei and Lenovo are both on record stating Qualcomm has in the past threatened retaliation against them if they attempted to challenge Qualcomm's legal terms by either delaying, or cutting off supply of chips.
Qulcomm's refusal to license their patents is another dangerous game they are playing since most consider their patent holdings to be standard-essential patents. This is a clear violation of FRAND.
It takes a company like Apple to stand up to a company like Qualcomm and personally I am glad to see it happen. I'm sure many of the other OEM's who cannot sustain a fight against Qualcomm (or are unwilling to) are glad to see it as well, which can be confirmed by the support Apple is receiving by many of it's competitors (Samsung, Huawei, Lenovo, ZTE, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Intel, Sprint).
You make the point well; that if the same rebates for exclusivity have been cut with multiple smartphone vendors, it’s more likely that it’s Qualcomm pushing this arrangement than it would be that each smartphone vendor happened to decide on its own to demand a large rebate, out of the blue, thus prompting Qualcomm to think up the idea of requiring exclusivity as a reaction to the rebate demand. Common sense.
The issue of rebate isn't as important as the offer of exclusivity. Perhaps it won't matter anyway. Wrong is wrong no matter who proposed it.
FWIW Mr Mueller whose opinion and articles have been mentioned a few times in this thread already believes it was likely Apple who offered to deal exclusively with Qualcomm in return for a lower royalty. He thinks Apple is being disingenuous by saying they've always wanted to have multiple suppliers and leaving the impression it was Qualcomm saying that wasn't going to happen.
From FossPatents:
It's furthermore undisputed (because even a Qualcomm witness said so) that Qualcomm told Apple, in my words: if you want a better deal, you have to give us something of value...
Apple: We want a better deal. Not those cutthroat terms. (Discount or incentive payments--just a better deal on the bottom line.)
Qualcomm: Only if you give us something of value to us. (Such as a volume commitment.)
Apple: Well, how about exclusivity?
Qualcomm: We'd prefer a volume commitment. But exclusivity can also work.
He then goes on to say "Now, what does this mean for the legal case? With a jury, it could have huge psychological impact. Blame-shifting in the eyes of some laypeople. But remember, this is a bench trial."
Still sounds like conjecture. Note that there aren’t any quotes around those statements attributed to each party. That’s the giveaway that nobody is able to definitively argue that Apple requested exclusivity. My point, which I think I made clearly, was one of Occam’s Razor. The evidence suggests it likely was a fixture of Qualcomm deals.
Appeared to me that Apple was merely attempting due diligence about the rules of the game, but it was also obvious that Qualcomm would only incentivize Apple if they didn't look at any other sourcing.
Either way, the damage to Qualcomm was obvious from this;
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-11/qualcomm-casting-intel-as-hypocrite-backfires-in-antitrust-trial "Evans, who formerly ran Intel’s mobile phone chip unit, repeatedly turned Ryan’s questions into opportunities to restate her company’s opinion that Qualcomm unfairly used technology licensing and its leadership in smartphone components to lock out competition. Ryan frequently sought to corner Evans by citing piecemeal excerpts from her emails and pretrial testimony, a common tactic in trials to save time.
Evans had none of it, asserting her right to read documents aloud in their entirety while insisting context was crucial. When Ryan tried to interrupt her, she ignored him and read on.
Evans was born in Senegal, putting her in a very unusual category in the chip industry: a black female executive. Her mission at Intel was to gain market share in mobile phones to try to match the company’s dominant hold of the personal computer processor industry.
“Mr. Ryan, Mr. Ryan, you’re going very fast. Easy,” she told the attorney at one point. Earlier she’d said: “I’m a French speaker, numbers are hard. I’d ask you to please slow down."
Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
One company out of many, 62% of all profits. Still not losing.
Who spoke of losing? Or winning for that matter!
If we are going to spout numbers, isn't it reasonable to expect valid numbers?
Apple, over four quarters, typically gains over 80% of the profits in the smartphone industry. You chose a single quarter, which is not a sufficient indicator for a yearly calculated metric. Samsung picks up about 10%, and the rest is split amongst the other players.
Maybe that is changing, but I doubt it.
Either way, a company, Apple, with some 15% to 18% of total smartphone marketshare worldwide for the year, is doing pretty well.
Yeah, its those ASP's and margins that are behind Apple being able to do this, year after year.
I didn't 'choose' one quarter. I simply mentioned the last data point I had seen which happened to be for one quarter.
Given that Android had a great - year - pushing into higher price bands throughout 2018 and Apple has announced a rocky iPhone start to 2019, I think it may even end up lower than 80% for the year.
Either way, and as far as I can see, the 90-100% seems off to me.
You "chose" to post that data point, so yeah, you "chose" one quarter, and since you didn't post a link, it's just anecdotal.
"Given that Android has had a great year"
Evidence of that please, and not just Huawei data. Android device sales are flat, and LG and Samsung just got hammered. What makes you think that Huawei, with its "great" unit sales, didn't have high marketing and acquisition costs that effected their revenue and profit?
'Great' in the sense that since 2017 most of Android's top manufacturers have increased prices and pushed into higher bands with success. That carried over into 2018.
Huawei, Honor, Samsung, Oppo, Vivo, OnePlus etc. With each passing quarter, new, higher priced flagships have appeared. They now have price bands for all budgets.
I am not talking about 'unit sales' in a general sense but specifically the progress Android manufacturers have made in entering higher bands.
Obviously Huawei is blazing a trail at the moment but in terms of higher priced terminals, it is clear that just about all the major Android manufacturers have moved up a level with regards to pricing.
That will possibly allow them to gain more of the overall profit available.
"it is clear" but, again, no data, and "moved up a level", which is increasing ASP, in case you didn't make that connection, doesn't necessarily mean increasing margins.
But now it's okay to talk about ASP...finally...
ASP means nothing - to consumers!
In this case we are talking about industry profits in relation to Apple's proportion. It doesn't mean anything either - which I made clear in the very first post!
All I am doing is looking at the 90-100% claim, which still hasn't been substantiated in any way, and raising some major eyebrows.
The whole point of who has the most profits is moot if most of them aren't actually used for anything at all.
If Apple makes 100€ profit and sticks 90€ in an off shore account for a decade, it doesn't benefit consumers as much less than 10€ is used for further product development.
If Huawei makes 20€ profit and reserves 5€, it leaves less than 15€ for further product development but more than Apple.
Simplified in the extreme, this is pretty much reality. Huawei is doing FAR more than Apple with far less of of the profit pie.
Better products, more innovation and higher investment in R&D.
Not only that but Huawei's consumer business unit not only announced that they broke through the 100 billion USD revenue mark and sold over 200,000,000 handsets but that it also sold over a 100,000,000 non-handset devices. Another record for that business unit.
As is patently evident, not having the highest ASP or highest revenues or highest profits, has had ZERO impact on its ability to do amazing business while besting Apple along the way in R&D efforts too.
Anyone wishing to wave the revenue/profits flag really should look at Apple's amassed cash and reflect a little.
Given that you appear to be comparing only flagship phones, I would note that Android OS devices has always been known for features more leading or bleeding edge than Apple over iPhone's entire existence, especially given Apple's penchant for few models per yearly cycle, now three, so that 80% of smartphone profits, comes from the bulk of sales of a mere three current iPhone models.
However, ignoring Apple's many other products that are innovative, if not groundbreaking, belies your bias. Apple's wearables have been very innovative, bolstered by Apple's growing expertise in processor design and a broad range of technologies including notably, medical.
You muddy the waters when you compare Apple's consumer product R&D with Huawei's, which is three sectors, telecom, enterprise, and consumer.
Apple's R&D is almost the same today as Huawei's, but targeted only at consumer products and services, and for the most part, Apple's R&D has been very efficiently utilized, and continues to grow with new hires and facility expansions.
Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
One company out of many, 62% of all profits. Still not losing.
Who spoke of losing? Or winning for that matter!
If we are going to spout numbers, isn't it reasonable to expect valid numbers?
Apple, over four quarters, typically gains over 80% of the profits in the smartphone industry. You chose a single quarter, which is not a sufficient indicator for a yearly calculated metric. Samsung picks up about 10%, and the rest is split amongst the other players.
Maybe that is changing, but I doubt it.
Either way, a company, Apple, with some 15% to 18% of total smartphone marketshare worldwide for the year, is doing pretty well.
Yeah, its those ASP's and margins that are behind Apple being able to do this, year after year.
I didn't 'choose' one quarter. I simply mentioned the last data point I had seen which happened to be for one quarter.
Given that Android had a great - year - pushing into higher price bands throughout 2018 and Apple has announced a rocky iPhone start to 2019, I think it may even end up lower than 80% for the year.
Either way, and as far as I can see, the 90-100% seems off to me.
You "chose" to post that data point, so yeah, you "chose" one quarter, and since you didn't post a link, it's just anecdotal.
"Given that Android has had a great year"
Evidence of that please, and not just Huawei data. Android device sales are flat, and LG and Samsung just got hammered. What makes you think that Huawei, with its "great" unit sales, didn't have high marketing and acquisition costs that effected their revenue and profit?
'Great' in the sense that since 2017 most of Android's top manufacturers have increased prices and pushed into higher bands with success. That carried over into 2018.
Huawei, Honor, Samsung, Oppo, Vivo, OnePlus etc. With each passing quarter, new, higher priced flagships have appeared. They now have price bands for all budgets.
I am not talking about 'unit sales' in a general sense but specifically the progress Android manufacturers have made in entering higher bands.
Obviously Huawei is blazing a trail at the moment but in terms of higher priced terminals, it is clear that just about all the major Android manufacturers have moved up a level with regards to pricing.
That will possibly allow them to gain more of the overall profit available.
"it is clear" but, again, no data, and "moved up a level", which is increasing ASP, in case you didn't make that connection, doesn't necessarily mean increasing margins.
But now it's okay to talk about ASP...finally...
ASP means nothing - to consumers!
In this case we are talking about industry profits in relation to Apple's proportion. It doesn't mean anything either - which I made clear in the very first post!
All I am doing is looking at the 90-100% claim, which still hasn't been substantiated in any way, and raising some major eyebrows.
The whole point of who has the most profits is moot if most of them aren't actually used for anything at all.
If Apple makes 100€ profit and sticks 90€ in an off shore account for a decade, it doesn't benefit consumers as much less than 10€ is used for further product development.
If Huawei makes 20€ profit and reserves 5€, it leaves less than 15€ for further product development but more than Apple.
Simplified in the extreme, this is pretty much reality. Huawei is doing FAR more than Apple with far less of of the profit pie.
Better products, more innovation and higher investment in R&D.
Not only that but Huawei's consumer business unit not only announced that they broke through the 100 billion USD revenue mark and sold over 200,000,000 handsets but that it also sold over a 100,000,000 non-handset devices. Another record for that business unit.
As is patently evident, not having the highest ASP or highest revenues or highest profits, has had ZERO impact on its ability to do amazing business while besting Apple along the way in R&D efforts too.
Anyone wishing to wave the revenue/profits flag really should look at Apple's amassed cash and reflect a little.
You speak of consumers, what’s good for them. Then you attempt to make a case that Huawei is somehow putting more into R&D than Apple, but you neglect to mention that Hauwei has other businesses that demand some of that R&D. So what’s the numbers when you compare iPhone R&D to Hauwei smartphone R&D. You don’t know. You’re just blowing hot air, aren’t you?
Of course not. Just take a look at the phones they have released of late - across all price bands - as they agressively push innovation down to the lower bands.
The results are already out there for you to experience yourself.
One of my Apple criticisms from a business approach perspective is the lack of dynamism in its release cycle. In part, this lack of dynamism and iterative product releases has left its newest phones looking less attractive in China during its peak quarter. I can assure you that if they appear less attractive today, they will not have an easier time by the time MWC2019 comes around, and that is next month!
China is entering a downturn.
One explanation is that the rapid growth was driven by China's drive to relocate rural populations to newly created urban areas; that is nearly complete, and noticeably, auto sales decreased for the first time in 20 years. The other is that there are effects from trade issues with the U.S, though there is also Chinese Governmental policy that is effecting the economy.
You would probably do well to consider macro economic policies that are effecting the luxury market in China, rather than some screed that assumes that Apple is having significant problems in other than China and emerging economic zones.
More to the point, Huawei, et al, are also going to hit the wall in markets that are today, or will be, at saturation in the near term.
It sounds like Mr. Mollenkopf doesn't know his a$$ from a whole in the ground. Qualcomm has been in the business of gaining exclusivity through rebates. It has been documented several times by different Android manufacturers throughout the years. When I heard Huawei was being interviewed as part of the FTC's investigation, I knew Qualcomm would be in hot water. Huawei has done a great job documenting how Qualcomm attempted to gain exclusivity through these rebates (they called them financial bribes).
Huawei and Lenovo are both on record stating Qualcomm has in the past threatened retaliation against them if they attempted to challenge Qualcomm's legal terms by either delaying, or cutting off supply of chips.
Qulcomm's refusal to license their patents is another dangerous game they are playing since most consider their patent holdings to be standard-essential patents. This is a clear violation of FRAND.
It takes a company like Apple to stand up to a company like Qualcomm and personally I am glad to see it happen. I'm sure many of the other OEM's who cannot sustain a fight against Qualcomm (or are unwilling to) are glad to see it as well, which can be confirmed by the support Apple is receiving by many of it's competitors (Samsung, Huawei, Lenovo, ZTE, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Intel, Sprint).
You make the point well; that if the same rebates for exclusivity have been cut with multiple smartphone vendors, it’s more likely that it’s Qualcomm pushing this arrangement than it would be that each smartphone vendor happened to decide on its own to demand a large rebate, out of the blue, thus prompting Qualcomm to think up the idea of requiring exclusivity as a reaction to the rebate demand. Common sense.
FWIW Mr Mueller whose opinion and articles have been mentioned a few times in this thread already believes it was likely Apple who offered to deal exclusively with Qualcomm in return for a lower royalty. He thinks Apple is being disingenuous by saying they've always wanted to have multiple suppliers and leaving the impression it was Qualcomm saying that wasn't going to happen.
Very strange summary of Mueller's opinions. I didn't see him stating anywhere that he thinks Apple is being disingenuous about having multiple suppliers. If I have missed that, I will be happy to stand corrected.
You also left out his subsequent and final summary:
******* I doubt that this question of who, under what circumstances, took the initiative to offer exclusivity has any weight. If this were a criminal price-fixing case, then the one who came up with the scheme might be sentenced to a couple more years than the other guy, but the latter would still go to jail, too. In price-fixing, they'd both have an anticompetitive benefit because they'd gang up on customers (the same group of customers, in fact). In the Qualcomm-Apple case, the benefit to Apple was a deal that an Apple witness basically described as "less bad" than the original deal, but still not fair in Apple's view, while Qualcomm had the benefit of raising the entrance barrier to its (Qualcomm's) competitors--with a customer the FTC argues (and Intel confirmed) is strategically extremely important for a component supplier to gain market share, build a reputation, and generate volume. By contrast, Apple didn't foreclose any market to its own competitors. And it certainly didn't leverage this deal to undercut anybody. ********
Apple screws suppliers, all big companies do it to some extent, some are just more aggressive than other. Supermarkets push milk farmers to the point they can hardly make any money. Apple killed GT advanced technologies because it couldn't meet apples demands, screwed some other imaging company to although forgot the name.
Apple is a super aggressive greedy bully, will do whatever it takes to keep generating its billions. Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. Apple now trying to screw over Qualcomm, because all they are thinking about is their share price and retaining their ridiculous profit margins.
LOL what a distorted view of reality. GT failed on their own, and their CEO was busted for making transactions with his insider info.
If by “losing the war” you mean “now collects the vast majority of profits and became the most successful public company in history”, sure, totally lost that one.
Apple is known for not managing to its stock price. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Their profit margin (38%) isn’t ridiculous, and is smaller than many other consumer sectors.
Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
One company out of many, 62% of all profits. Still not losing.
Who spoke of losing? Or winning for that matter!
If we are going to spout numbers, isn't it reasonable to expect valid numbers?
Apple, over four quarters, typically gains over 80% of the profits in the smartphone industry. You chose a single quarter, which is not a sufficient indicator for a yearly calculated metric. Samsung picks up about 10%, and the rest is split amongst the other players.
Maybe that is changing, but I doubt it.
Either way, a company, Apple, with some 15% to 18% of total smartphone marketshare worldwide for the year, is doing pretty well.
Yeah, its those ASP's and margins that are behind Apple being able to do this, year after year.
I didn't 'choose' one quarter. I simply mentioned the last data point I had seen which happened to be for one quarter.
Given that Android had a great - year - pushing into higher price bands throughout 2018 and Apple has announced a rocky iPhone start to 2019, I think it may even end up lower than 80% for the year.
Either way, and as far as I can see, the 90-100% seems off to me.
You "chose" to post that data point, so yeah, you "chose" one quarter, and since you didn't post a link, it's just anecdotal.
"Given that Android has had a great year"
Evidence of that please, and not just Huawei data. Android device sales are flat, and LG and Samsung just got hammered. What makes you think that Huawei, with its "great" unit sales, didn't have high marketing and acquisition costs that effected their revenue and profit?
'Great' in the sense that since 2017 most of Android's top manufacturers have increased prices and pushed into higher bands with success. That carried over into 2018.
Huawei, Honor, Samsung, Oppo, Vivo, OnePlus etc. With each passing quarter, new, higher priced flagships have appeared. They now have price bands for all budgets.
I am not talking about 'unit sales' in a general sense but specifically the progress Android manufacturers have made in entering higher bands.
Obviously Huawei is blazing a trail at the moment but in terms of higher priced terminals, it is clear that just about all the major Android manufacturers have moved up a level with regards to pricing.
That will possibly allow them to gain more of the overall profit available.
"it is clear" but, again, no data, and "moved up a level", which is increasing ASP, in case you didn't make that connection, doesn't necessarily mean increasing margins.
But now it's okay to talk about ASP...finally...
ASP means nothing - to consumers!
In this case we are talking about industry profits in relation to Apple's proportion. It doesn't mean anything either - which I made clear in the very first post!
All I am doing is looking at the 90-100% claim, which still hasn't been substantiated in any way, and raising some major eyebrows.
The whole point of who has the most profits is moot if most of them aren't actually used for anything at all.
If Apple makes 100€ profit and sticks 90€ in an off shore account for a decade, it doesn't benefit consumers as much less than 10€ is used for further product development.
If Huawei makes 20€ profit and reserves 5€, it leaves less than 15€ for further product development but more than Apple.
Simplified in the extreme, this is pretty much reality. Huawei is doing FAR more than Apple with far less of of the profit pie.
Better products, more innovation and higher investment in R&D.
Not only that but Huawei's consumer business unit not only announced that they broke through the 100 billion USD revenue mark and sold over 200,000,000 handsets but that it also sold over a 100,000,000 non-handset devices. Another record for that business unit.
As is patently evident, not having the highest ASP or highest revenues or highest profits, has had ZERO impact on its ability to do amazing business while besting Apple along the way in R&D efforts too.
Anyone wishing to wave the revenue/profits flag really should look at Apple's amassed cash and reflect a little.
You speak of consumers, what’s good for them. Then you attempt to make a case that Huawei is somehow putting more into R&D than Apple, but you neglect to mention that Hauwei has other businesses that demand some of that R&D. So what’s the numbers when you compare iPhone R&D to Hauwei smartphone R&D. You don’t know. You’re just blowing hot air, aren’t you?
One of my Apple criticisms from a business approach perspective is the lack of dynamism in its release cycle. In part, this lack of dynamism and iterative product releases has left its newest phones looking less attractive in China during its peak quarter. I can assure you that if they appear less attractive today, they will not have an easier time by the time MWC2019 comes around, and that is next month!
If you (or China) think Apple’s iterative product developer is detrimental, you (or China) still fail to understand Apple.
https://www.macworld.com/article/1151235/macs/apple-rolls.html The iPhone is following the same pattern. In 2007 it debuted with no third-party apps, no 3G networking, and a maximum storage capacity of 8GB. One year later, Apple had doubled storage, added 3G and GPS, and opened the App Store. The year after that, Apple swapped in a faster processor, added a compass and an improved camera, and doubled storage again. The pattern repeats. We may never see an iPhone that utterly blows away the prior year’s, but we’ll soon have one that utterly blows away the original iPhone.
Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
One company out of many, 62% of all profits. Still not losing.
Who spoke of losing? Or winning for that matter!
If we are going to spout numbers, isn't it reasonable to expect valid numbers?
Apple, over four quarters, typically gains over 80% of the profits in the smartphone industry. You chose a single quarter, which is not a sufficient indicator for a yearly calculated metric. Samsung picks up about 10%, and the rest is split amongst the other players.
Maybe that is changing, but I doubt it.
Either way, a company, Apple, with some 15% to 18% of total smartphone marketshare worldwide for the year, is doing pretty well.
Yeah, its those ASP's and margins that are behind Apple being able to do this, year after year.
I didn't 'choose' one quarter. I simply mentioned the last data point I had seen which happened to be for one quarter.
Given that Android had a great - year - pushing into higher price bands throughout 2018 and Apple has announced a rocky iPhone start to 2019, I think it may even end up lower than 80% for the year.
Either way, and as far as I can see, the 90-100% seems off to me.
You "chose" to post that data point, so yeah, you "chose" one quarter, and since you didn't post a link, it's just anecdotal.
"Given that Android has had a great year"
Evidence of that please, and not just Huawei data. Android device sales are flat, and LG and Samsung just got hammered. What makes you think that Huawei, with its "great" unit sales, didn't have high marketing and acquisition costs that effected their revenue and profit?
'Great' in the sense that since 2017 most of Android's top manufacturers have increased prices and pushed into higher bands with success. That carried over into 2018.
Huawei, Honor, Samsung, Oppo, Vivo, OnePlus etc. With each passing quarter, new, higher priced flagships have appeared. They now have price bands for all budgets.
I am not talking about 'unit sales' in a general sense but specifically the progress Android manufacturers have made in entering higher bands.
Obviously Huawei is blazing a trail at the moment but in terms of higher priced terminals, it is clear that just about all the major Android manufacturers have moved up a level with regards to pricing.
That will possibly allow them to gain more of the overall profit available.
"it is clear" but, again, no data, and "moved up a level", which is increasing ASP, in case you didn't make that connection, doesn't necessarily mean increasing margins.
But now it's okay to talk about ASP...finally...
ASP means nothing - to consumers!
In this case we are talking about industry profits in relation to Apple's proportion. It doesn't mean anything either - which I made clear in the very first post!
All I am doing is looking at the 90-100% claim, which still hasn't been substantiated in any way, and raising some major eyebrows.
The whole point of who has the most profits is moot if most of them aren't actually used for anything at all.
If Apple makes 100€ profit and sticks 90€ in an off shore account for a decade, it doesn't benefit consumers as much less than 10€ is used for further product development.
If Huawei makes 20€ profit and reserves 5€, it leaves less than 15€ for further product development but more than Apple.
Simplified in the extreme, this is pretty much reality. Huawei is doing FAR more than Apple with far less of of the profit pie.
Better products, more innovation and higher investment in R&D.
Not only that but Huawei's consumer business unit not only announced that they broke through the 100 billion USD revenue mark and sold over 200,000,000 handsets but that it also sold over a 100,000,000 non-handset devices. Another record for that business unit.
As is patently evident, not having the highest ASP or highest revenues or highest profits, has had ZERO impact on its ability to do amazing business while besting Apple along the way in R&D efforts too.
Anyone wishing to wave the revenue/profits flag really should look at Apple's amassed cash and reflect a little.
You speak of consumers, what’s good for them. Then you attempt to make a case that Huawei is somehow putting more into R&D than Apple, but you neglect to mention that Hauwei has other businesses that demand some of that R&D. So what’s the numbers when you compare iPhone R&D to Hauwei smartphone R&D. You don’t know. You’re just blowing hot air, aren’t you?
One of my Apple criticisms from a business approach perspective is the lack of dynamism in its release cycle. In part, this lack of dynamism and iterative product releases has left its newest phones looking less attractive in China during its peak quarter. I can assure you that if they appear less attractive today, they will not have an easier time by the time MWC2019 comes around, and that is next month!
If you (or China) think Apple’s iterative product developer is detrimental, you (or China) still fail to understand Apple.
https://www.macworld.com/article/1151235/macs/apple-rolls.html The iPhone is following the same pattern. In 2007 it debuted with no third-party apps, no 3G networking, and a maximum storage capacity of 8GB. One year later, Apple had doubled storage, added 3G and GPS, and opened the App Store. The year after that, Apple swapped in a faster processor, added a compass and an improved camera, and doubled storage again. The pattern repeats. We may never see an iPhone that utterly blows away the prior year’s, but we’ll soon have one that utterly blows away the original iPhone.
Yes. That's what I said. I understand Apple well enough to see it is now* detrimental
* Times have changed. As a result Apple needs to change. In fact it is changing, just too slowly.
Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. .
I guess if you consider getting 90 to 100% of the ENTIRE industry's profits "losing," you're spot on. LOL.
The last news I saw on this subject was Q2-18 and the figure given was 62%.
One company out of many, 62% of all profits. Still not losing.
Who spoke of losing? Or winning for that matter!
If we are going to spout numbers, isn't it reasonable to expect valid numbers?
Apple, over four quarters, typically gains over 80% of the profits in the smartphone industry. You chose a single quarter, which is not a sufficient indicator for a yearly calculated metric. Samsung picks up about 10%, and the rest is split amongst the other players.
Maybe that is changing, but I doubt it.
Either way, a company, Apple, with some 15% to 18% of total smartphone marketshare worldwide for the year, is doing pretty well.
Yeah, its those ASP's and margins that are behind Apple being able to do this, year after year.
I didn't 'choose' one quarter. I simply mentioned the last data point I had seen which happened to be for one quarter.
Given that Android had a great - year - pushing into higher price bands throughout 2018 and Apple has announced a rocky iPhone start to 2019, I think it may even end up lower than 80% for the year.
Either way, and as far as I can see, the 90-100% seems off to me.
You "chose" to post that data point, so yeah, you "chose" one quarter, and since you didn't post a link, it's just anecdotal.
"Given that Android has had a great year"
Evidence of that please, and not just Huawei data. Android device sales are flat, and LG and Samsung just got hammered. What makes you think that Huawei, with its "great" unit sales, didn't have high marketing and acquisition costs that effected their revenue and profit?
'Great' in the sense that since 2017 most of Android's top manufacturers have increased prices and pushed into higher bands with success. That carried over into 2018.
Huawei, Honor, Samsung, Oppo, Vivo, OnePlus etc. With each passing quarter, new, higher priced flagships have appeared. They now have price bands for all budgets.
I am not talking about 'unit sales' in a general sense but specifically the progress Android manufacturers have made in entering higher bands.
Obviously Huawei is blazing a trail at the moment but in terms of higher priced terminals, it is clear that just about all the major Android manufacturers have moved up a level with regards to pricing.
That will possibly allow them to gain more of the overall profit available.
"it is clear" but, again, no data, and "moved up a level", which is increasing ASP, in case you didn't make that connection, doesn't necessarily mean increasing margins.
But now it's okay to talk about ASP...finally...
ASP means nothing - to consumers!
In this case we are talking about industry profits in relation to Apple's proportion. It doesn't mean anything either - which I made clear in the very first post!
All I am doing is looking at the 90-100% claim, which still hasn't been substantiated in any way, and raising some major eyebrows.
The whole point of who has the most profits is moot if most of them aren't actually used for anything at all.
If Apple makes 100€ profit and sticks 90€ in an off shore account for a decade, it doesn't benefit consumers as much less than 10€ is used for further product development.
If Huawei makes 20€ profit and reserves 5€, it leaves less than 15€ for further product development but more than Apple.
Simplified in the extreme, this is pretty much reality. Huawei is doing FAR more than Apple with far less of of the profit pie.
Better products, more innovation and higher investment in R&D.
Not only that but Huawei's consumer business unit not only announced that they broke through the 100 billion USD revenue mark and sold over 200,000,000 handsets but that it also sold over a 100,000,000 non-handset devices. Another record for that business unit.
As is patently evident, not having the highest ASP or highest revenues or highest profits, has had ZERO impact on its ability to do amazing business while besting Apple along the way in R&D efforts too.
Anyone wishing to wave the revenue/profits flag really should look at Apple's amassed cash and reflect a little.
You speak of consumers, what’s good for them. Then you attempt to make a case that Huawei is somehow putting more into R&D than Apple, but you neglect to mention that Hauwei has other businesses that demand some of that R&D. So what’s the numbers when you compare iPhone R&D to Hauwei smartphone R&D. You don’t know. You’re just blowing hot air, aren’t you?
One of my Apple criticisms from a business approach perspective is the lack of dynamism in its release cycle. In part, this lack of dynamism and iterative product releases has left its newest phones looking less attractive in China during its peak quarter. I can assure you that if they appear less attractive today, they will not have an easier time by the time MWC2019 comes around, and that is next month!
If you (or China) think Apple’s iterative product developer is detrimental, you (or China) still fail to understand Apple.
https://www.macworld.com/article/1151235/macs/apple-rolls.html The iPhone is following the same pattern. In 2007 it debuted with no third-party apps, no 3G networking, and a maximum storage capacity of 8GB. One year later, Apple had doubled storage, added 3G and GPS, and opened the App Store. The year after that, Apple swapped in a faster processor, added a compass and an improved camera, and doubled storage again. The pattern repeats. We may never see an iPhone that utterly blows away the prior year’s, but we’ll soon have one that utterly blows away the original iPhone.
Yes. That's what I said. I understand Apple well enough to see it is now* detrimental
* Times have changed. As a result Apple needs to change. In fact it is changing, just too slowly.
It appears to me that Apple is in fact making changes very rapidly, acknowledging the maturity of the smartphone market and lengthening upgrade cycles, and relying increasingly on the satisfaction of its growing user base for services within its broad ecosystem.
How increasing the frequency of iPhone releases would help Apple in the long term, or even adding certain features in the same yearly cycle as Android OS device makers would change anything, is definitely hard to predict. Still, history would indicate that users in a mature market will be less likely to move to another ecosystem, than wait for those features to show up in another release cycle.
An example would be myself, who will be happy to wait for Apple to add a rumored three rear cameras this fall, never considering the option of moving to Samsung's new models, as an example, for the same feature. Similarly, I wasn't too concerned at the time when Apple passed on the first generation of LTE modem, due to power concerns.
It just isn't that big of a deal in a mature market, nor will Apple be at a loss for waiting until 2020 for a 5G modem. There just won't be that many users that have to have 5G in 2019 to be an issue for Apple.
I just saw some data that 390 m smartphones were sold in China in 2018, down 15%/58 million units.
Apple screws suppliers, all big companies do it to some extent, some are just more aggressive than other. Supermarkets push milk farmers to the point they can hardly make any money. Apple killed GT advanced technologies because it couldn't meet apples demands, screwed some other imaging company to although forgot the name.
Apple is a super aggressive greedy bully, will do whatever it takes to keep generating its billions. Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. Apple now trying to screw over Qualcomm, because all they are thinking about is their share price and retaining their ridiculous profit margins.
This comment reminds me of the many people on YouTube who think the earth is flat. ** First; The argument takes irrelevant information about milk prices, only one failed tech supplier and concludes that all Apple suppliers are being screwed over (“hardly make any money”).
* Fact; Samsung Electronics is a major supplier to Apple. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Electronics - Someone must prove that Samsung Electronics’ panel and semiconductor divisions “can hardly make any money” because of Apple. - Of course no one can prove this charge about all Apple suppliers because the accusation is based on uninformed nonsense.
This alone shows that the situation involved several tech companies going after each other and not simply Jobs attacking Android OEMs. And Apple was able to settle with HTC early in the process (2012). That doesn’t fit the claim that Apple started a nuclear / completely destructive war, against Android OEMs. https://www.wired.com/2012/11/apple-and-htc-settlement/
Apple screws suppliers, all big companies do it to some extent, some are just more aggressive than other. Supermarkets push milk farmers to the point they can hardly make any money. Apple killed GT advanced technologies because it couldn't meet apples demands, screwed some other imaging company to although forgot the name.
Apple is a super aggressive greedy bully, will do whatever it takes to keep generating its billions. Remember they were going super nuclear on android, well that worked out well for them, they lost that war. Apple now trying to screw over Qualcomm, because all they are thinking about is their share price and retaining their ridiculous profit margins.
Comments
At this point, it's hard to defend Qualcomm's behavior. You pretty much have to believe that essentially the entire industry is lying about Qualcomm's actions or you have to ignore what that industry has been saying. And you have to believe that a half dozen different regulatory bodies have been fooled by the industry into believing things which aren't true. Even if we only accept as true those things which Qualcomm admits to or doesn't deny, it's hard to defend Qualcomm's behavior. It has behaved egregiously, and not just when it comes to Apple.
I’m confident you’ll find a way to disagree.
Avon, when you have to take the discussion off on a minor point so far removed from
the key point being made, that’s when you know you’re grasping at straws. It’s not flattering, kinda hard to watch actually. But maybe some are fooled. Credit to you if you rope a few in.
Are you sure Apple and Intel are pushing negative PR? It’s certainly not Apple’s style. Usually they remain mum. But pushing back... on that I’ll agree. Apple has certainly pushed back against the huge amount of negative PR Qualcomm has been spinning against them.
I contend it may help Apple. Higher priced Androids invite a comparison to iPhones; if I’m shopping $250 Androids, I’m not seeing any iPhone models across the isle to compare them too, but if I’m shopping $850 Androids, I sure will give some time to look at an iPhone. I’m confident Apple is going to do well in that comparison.
Posted without comment wrt Huawei
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/huawei-poland-wang-weijing_us_5c3b032ae4b0e0baf53e254b
"“One thing is clear: this is another nail in the coffin of Huawei’s European ambitions,” said Thorsten Benner, director of the Global Public Policy Institute, a think tank."
Still sounds like conjecture. Note that there aren’t any quotes around those statements attributed to each party. That’s the giveaway that nobody is able to definitively argue that Apple requested exclusivity. My point, which I think I made clearly, was one of Occam’s Razor. The evidence suggests it likely was a fixture of Qualcomm deals.
You speak of consumers, what’s good for them. Then you attempt to make a case that Huawei is somehow putting more into R&D than Apple, but you neglect to mention that Hauwei has other businesses that demand some of that R&D. So what’s the numbers when you compare iPhone R&D to Hauwei smartphone R&D. You don’t know. You’re just blowing hot air, aren’t you?
The results are already out there for you to experience yourself.
One of my Apple criticisms from a business approach perspective is the lack of dynamism in its release cycle. In part, this lack of dynamism and iterative product releases has left its newest phones looking less attractive in China during its peak quarter. I can assure you that if they appear less attractive today, they will not have an easier time by the time MWC2019 comes around, and that is next month!
Either way, the damage to Qualcomm was obvious from this;
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-11/qualcomm-casting-intel-as-hypocrite-backfires-in-antitrust-trial
"Evans, who formerly ran Intel’s mobile phone chip unit, repeatedly turned Ryan’s questions into opportunities to restate her company’s opinion that Qualcomm unfairly used technology licensing and its leadership in smartphone components to lock out competition. Ryan frequently sought to corner Evans by citing piecemeal excerpts from her emails and pretrial testimony, a common tactic in trials to save time.
Evans had none of it, asserting her right to read documents aloud in their entirety while insisting context was crucial. When Ryan tried to interrupt her, she ignored him and read on.
Evans was born in Senegal, putting her in a very unusual category in the chip industry: a black female executive. Her mission at Intel was to gain market share in mobile phones to try to match the company’s dominant hold of the personal computer processor industry.
“Mr. Ryan, Mr. Ryan, you’re going very fast. Easy,” she told the attorney at one point. Earlier she’d said: “I’m a French speaker, numbers are hard. I’d ask you to please slow down."
However, ignoring Apple's many other products that are innovative, if not groundbreaking, belies your bias. Apple's wearables have been very innovative, bolstered by Apple's growing expertise in processor design and a broad range of technologies including notably, medical.
You muddy the waters when you compare Apple's consumer product R&D with Huawei's, which is three sectors, telecom, enterprise, and consumer.
Apple's R&D is almost the same today as Huawei's, but targeted only at consumer products and services, and for the most part, Apple's R&D has been very efficiently utilized, and continues to grow with new hires and facility expansions.
One explanation is that the rapid growth was driven by China's drive to relocate rural populations to newly created urban areas; that is nearly complete, and noticeably, auto sales decreased for the first time in 20 years. The other is that there are effects from trade issues with the U.S, though there is also Chinese Governmental policy that is effecting the economy.
You would probably do well to consider macro economic policies that are effecting the luxury market in China, rather than some screed that assumes that Apple is having significant problems in other than China and emerging economic zones.
More to the point, Huawei, et al, are also going to hit the wall in markets that are today, or will be, at saturation in the near term.
You also left out his subsequent and final summary:
*******
I doubt that this question of who, under what circumstances, took the initiative to offer exclusivity has any weight. If this were a criminal price-fixing case, then the one who came up with the scheme might be sentenced to a couple more years than the other guy, but the latter would still go to jail, too. In price-fixing, they'd both have an anticompetitive benefit because they'd gang up on customers (the same group of customers, in fact). In the Qualcomm-Apple case, the benefit to Apple was a deal that an Apple witness basically described as "less bad" than the original deal, but still not fair in Apple's view, while Qualcomm had the benefit of raising the entrance barrier to its (Qualcomm's) competitors--with a customer the FTC argues (and Intel confirmed) is strategically extremely important for a component supplier to gain market share, build a reputation, and generate volume. By contrast, Apple didn't foreclose any market to its own competitors. And it certainly didn't leverage this deal to undercut anybody.
********
If by “losing the war” you mean “now collects the vast majority of profits and became the most successful public company in history”, sure, totally lost that one.
Apple is known for not managing to its stock price. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Their profit margin (38%) isn’t ridiculous, and is smaller than many other consumer sectors.
https://www.macworld.com/article/1151235/macs/apple-rolls.html
The iPhone is following the same pattern. In 2007 it debuted with no third-party apps, no 3G networking, and a maximum storage capacity of 8GB. One year later, Apple had doubled storage, added 3G and GPS, and opened the App Store. The year after that, Apple swapped in a faster processor, added a compass and an improved camera, and doubled storage again. The pattern repeats. We may never see an iPhone that utterly blows away the prior year’s, but we’ll soon have one that utterly blows away the original iPhone.
* Times have changed. As a result Apple needs to change. In fact it is changing, just too slowly.
How increasing the frequency of iPhone releases would help Apple in the long term, or even adding certain features in the same yearly cycle as Android OS device makers would change anything, is definitely hard to predict. Still, history would indicate that users in a mature market will be less likely to move to another ecosystem, than wait for those features to show up in another release cycle.
An example would be myself, who will be happy to wait for Apple to add a rumored three rear cameras this fall, never considering the option of moving to Samsung's new models, as an example, for the same feature. Similarly, I wasn't too concerned at the time when Apple passed on the first generation of LTE modem, due to power concerns.
It just isn't that big of a deal in a mature market, nor will Apple be at a loss for waiting until 2020 for a 5G modem. There just won't be that many users that have to have 5G in 2019 to be an issue for Apple.
I just saw some data that 390 m smartphones were sold in China in 2018, down 15%/58 million units.
This isn't only Apple, LG or Samsung's problem.
** First; The argument takes irrelevant information about milk prices, only one failed tech supplier and concludes that all Apple suppliers are being screwed over (“hardly make any money”).
* Fact; Samsung Electronics is a major supplier to Apple.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Electronics
- Someone must prove that Samsung Electronics’ panel and semiconductor divisions “can hardly make any money” because of Apple.
- Of course no one can prove this charge about all Apple suppliers because the accusation is based on uninformed nonsense.
** Second; the above comment makes a statement by Jobs about Android to conclude that Apple made war on all Android OEMs.
Wrong.
* Fact; in the battles between Android OEMs, Apple was not the only company to start filing patent lawsuits.
Motorola and Nokia sued Apple first.
https://www.cnet.com/news/this-time-motorola-sues-apple-over-patents/
https://www.zdnet.com/article/nokia-files-patent-suit-against-apple-over-iphones/ ;
This alone shows that the situation involved several tech companies going after each other and not simply Jobs attacking Android OEMs.
And Apple was able to settle with HTC early in the process (2012). That doesn’t fit the claim that Apple started a nuclear / completely destructive war, against Android OEMs.
https://www.wired.com/2012/11/apple-and-htc-settlement/