Apple's iPhone 11 was most-shipped handset in first half of 2020, report says

Posted:
in iPhone edited September 2020
Apple's iPhone 11 dominated worldwide smartphone shipments during the first half of 2020, according to new estimates from research firm Omdia, with the handset outperforming its next closest competitor by 26 million units.

iPhone 11


According to fresh statistics from Omdia's Smartphone Model Market Tracker, Apple shipped an estimated 37.7 million iPhone 11 units in the first half of the year. The figure compares to last year's top-performing handset, iPhone XR, which shipped 26.9 million units during the same six-month period.

"A key driver for the success of iPhone 11 is the lower starting price. iPhone 11 launched $50 cheaper than the previous iPhone XR while adding significant hardware improvements, like a dual-lens camera. iPhone XR did not feature such upgrades," Omdia said in a report Tuesday.

Other Apple products to make the top ten include the 2020 iPhone SE in fifth place with 8.7 million units shipped, iPhone XR in sixth with 8 million units, iPhone 11 Pro Max in seventh on 7.7 million units and iPhone 11 Pro in tenth with 6.7 million units.

On the whole, Apple saw a 13% year-over-year increase in iPhone device shipments during the second quarter thanks to a surge in iPhone 11 and iPhone SE demand, Omdia said.

Samsung took the second spot with the Galaxy A51, its lone entry in this year's top-ten, according to Omdia. The Korean tech giant shipped an estimated 11.4 million A51 units during the first half of 2020.

Xiaomi grabbed third and fourth place with the Redmi Note 8 and Note 8 Pro, which managed a respective 11 million and 10.2 million units shipped. The firm's Redmi 8A and 8 nabbed the eighth and ninth spots.

It should be noted that firms like Omdia do not have insight into Apple's supply or retail chains and provide estimates based on independent research. The methodology, and more importantly results, of market research firms have been brought into question in the past, with Apple executives dismissing the data as largely incorrect.

Further, Omdia's results are surprising considering Apple in July said iPhone 11 Pro, not iPhone 11, was its top-selling device for the company's third fiscal quarter of 2020. Executives in an earnings conference call intimated the 11 Pro was also the best-selling iPhone in the previous quarter.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    Most shipped?
    edited September 2020 watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 15
    How about net sales?
    edited September 2020 watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 15
    fred1fred1 Posts: 804member
    A $50 price difference made this much of a difference?
    At any rate, this is the one I want just as soon as the 12s are released and the price of the 11 goes down a bit. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 15
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,419member
    Most shipped?
    iPhones don't sit on shelves so most likely same as sold if these numbers are even to be believed.
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 5 of 15
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 1,616member
    I can totally see that. We decided on the 11, because the Pro was, as nice as it was, not worth the extra couple hundred. I didn't want to get old tech that would become obsolete sooner so XRs and other previous year models didn't appeal. The extra $50 was just icing on the cake. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 15
    I love the iPhone 11 and I can see why it's has been the  best seller. It has everything I want in a phone. It's the best phone I have ever bought!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 15
    Doesn't look good for Samsung. The A51 is a midrange phone. This can't be right, can it?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 15
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,824member
    KidGloves said:
    Doesn't look good for Samsung. The A51 is a midrange phone. This can't be right, can it?
    The figures are meaningless outside of iPhone land.

    The only way they would mean anything is if other manufacturers released the same amount of models every year.

    By design the Android market is tuned to less sales by model and more as a whole. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 9 of 15
    avon b7 said:
    KidGloves said:
    Doesn't look good for Samsung. The A51 is a midrange phone. This can't be right, can it?
    The figures are meaningless outside of iPhone land.

    The only way they would mean anything is if other manufacturers released the same amount of models every year.

    By design the Android market is tuned to less sales by model and more as a whole. 
    Yes, aka the "throw enough shit against the wall and hope some of it sticks" strategy, beloved by the knockoffs.
    watto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 10 of 15
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,824member
    avon b7 said:
    KidGloves said:
    Doesn't look good for Samsung. The A51 is a midrange phone. This can't be right, can it?
    The figures are meaningless outside of iPhone land.

    The only way they would mean anything is if other manufacturers released the same amount of models every year.

    By design the Android market is tuned to less sales by model and more as a whole. 
    Yes, aka the "throw enough shit against the wall and hope some of it sticks" strategy, beloved by the knockoffs.
    Well, they must be doing something right as Apple is implementing a lot of that shit, right?

    The truth of the matter is that there really hasn't been a lot of shit at all from the biggest players by sales. 

    Dare I say all the current trends have been set by Android phones over the last four years. 

    Instead of going on the attack, why not admit that and urge Apple to up its game a bit? 

    Luckily they have at least moved in that direction but they are far from leading in some key areas. 


  • Reply 11 of 15
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 22,996member
    Beats said:
    Most shipped?
    iPhones don't sit on shelves so most likely same as sold if these numbers are even to be believed.
    Shipped is sold anyway for the most part. Before a reseller gets the shipment the expectation of payment was already done and iPhone sales were recognized.

    You and others confuse "sold" as meaning a consumer bought it. Nope. The sale took place when it was shipped and paid for whether it was destined for warehouse stock or a store shelf, or a cell provider. When Walmart sells you an iPhone that's not when Apple counts the sale. The sale was Apple shipping to Walmart to begin with.

    Company owned Apple Stores may recognize when a sale occurs differently, and I suspect they do. That's why Apple (and most other manufacturers) has sell-in and sell-through.
    edited September 2020 muthuk_vanalingamchasm
  • Reply 12 of 15
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,265member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    KidGloves said:
    Doesn't look good for Samsung. The A51 is a midrange phone. This can't be right, can it?
    The figures are meaningless outside of iPhone land.

    The only way they would mean anything is if other manufacturers released the same amount of models every year.

    By design the Android market is tuned to less sales by model and more as a whole. 
    Yes, aka the "throw enough shit against the wall and hope some of it sticks" strategy, beloved by the knockoffs.
    Well, they must be doing something right as Apple is implementing a lot of that shit, right?

    The truth of the matter is that there really hasn't been a lot of shit at all from the biggest players by sales. 

    Dare I say all the current trends have been set by Android phones over the last four years. 

    Instead of going on the attack, why not admit that and urge Apple to up its game a bit? 

    Luckily they have at least moved in that direction but they are far from leading in some key areas. 


    Always, always, avon b7 goes back to the unit sales metric, aka "the church of marketshare" argument, never to user base, revenue, ASP, or profitability 


    https://www.ped30.com/2020/08/20/apple-huberty-second-hand-iphones/

    "Greater supply of used iPhones from trade-in programs helps expand Apple’s smartphone TAM [total addressable market] by 65%


    The iPhone SE, priced at $399, expands Apple’s smartphone addressable market into the sub $400 price band. 2Q20 IDC smartphone data suggests that the iPhone SE helped drive Apple share gains in every major region.

    However, we believe Apple’s share gain opportunity extends beyond the sale of new lower-priced iPhones

    The resale of used iPhones made possible by the accelerating adoption of trade-in programs makes the iPhone more accessible to an even larger percentage of consumers. We believe iPhones that are traded in are typically resold between $200 and $400, with the majority sold into emerging markets.

    Simply put, the proliferation of used iPhones and the coinciding strong market demand for used devices enables Apple to more aggressively sell into the sub $400 smartphone market, expanding the TAM by 65% and setting Apple up for future share gains."

    Looks like Apple continues its successful roadmap now based on a mere five different models, not some random feature list that drives the Android OS device market, to keep iPhone leading in revenues and profits. 

    Perhaps if Huawei didn't have to make so many different sub $200 models, or so many midrange models, or even so many flagship models, to compete in the Android OS device market, they could make the same returns as Apple, but as is, Huawei would have to sell something on the order of 800 million units a year to match Apple's profits from a mere 180 to 200 million units a year, and as you can see above, Apple does have a plan to keep increasing its iPhone user base beyond the current billion plus.


    and;

    https://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2020/8/12/apples-ecosystem-growth-is-accelerating

    "Looking ahead, my estimates have non-iPhone revenue accelerating from 14% growth to 20% growth in the coming quarters. iPad, Mac, and wearables are a major source of that growth acceleration. Considering how Apple is working off of a much larger revenue base, for revenue growth percentages to actually increase this far along in the process is intriguing. The takeaway is that Apple’s ecosystem is gaining momentum at a pace that should frighten the competition.

    Hundreds of millions of people will be buying their first Apple wearable device in the coming years. Given the inherent nature of wearable devices - new form factors designed to make technology more personal - it is very likely that one Apple wearable purchase will eventually lead to additional Apple wearable purchases. Apple can then leverage high-margin Services to run with more aggressive pricing on wearables (and other Apple devices) which only ends up boosting demand."

    edited September 2020 watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 15
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,824member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    KidGloves said:
    Doesn't look good for Samsung. The A51 is a midrange phone. This can't be right, can it?
    The figures are meaningless outside of iPhone land.

    The only way they would mean anything is if other manufacturers released the same amount of models every year.

    By design the Android market is tuned to less sales by model and more as a whole. 
    Yes, aka the "throw enough shit against the wall and hope some of it sticks" strategy, beloved by the knockoffs.
    Well, they must be doing something right as Apple is implementing a lot of that shit, right?

    The truth of the matter is that there really hasn't been a lot of shit at all from the biggest players by sales. 

    Dare I say all the current trends have been set by Android phones over the last four years. 

    Instead of going on the attack, why not admit that and urge Apple to up its game a bit? 

    Luckily they have at least moved in that direction but they are far from leading in some key areas. 


    Always, always, avon b7 goes back to the unit sales metric, aka "the church of marketshare" argument, never to user base, revenue, ASP, or profitability 


    https://www.ped30.com/2020/08/20/apple-huberty-second-hand-iphones/

    "Greater supply of used iPhones from trade-in programs helps expand Apple’s smartphone TAM [total addressable market] by 65%


    The iPhone SE, priced at $399, expands Apple’s smartphone addressable market into the sub $400 price band. 2Q20 IDC smartphone data suggests that the iPhone SE helped drive Apple share gains in every major region.

    However, we believe Apple’s share gain opportunity extends beyond the sale of new lower-priced iPhones

    The resale of used iPhones made possible by the accelerating adoption of trade-in programs makes the iPhone more accessible to an even larger percentage of consumers. We believe iPhones that are traded in are typically resold between $200 and $400, with the majority sold into emerging markets.

    Simply put, the proliferation of used iPhones and the coinciding strong market demand for used devices enables Apple to more aggressively sell into the sub $400 smartphone market, expanding the TAM by 65% and setting Apple up for future share gains."

    Looks like Apple continues its successful roadmap now based on a mere five different models, not some random feature list that drives the Android OS device market, to keep iPhone leading in revenues and profits. 

    Perhaps if Huawei didn't have to make so many different sub $200 models, or so many midrange models, or even so many flagship models, to compete in the Android OS device market, they could make the same returns as Apple, but as is, Huawei would have to sell something on the order of 800 million units a year to match Apple's profits from a mere 180 to 200 million units a year, and as you can see above, Apple does have a plan to keep increasing its iPhone user base beyond the current billion plus.


    and;

    https://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2020/8/12/apples-ecosystem-growth-is-accelerating

    "Looking ahead, my estimates have non-iPhone revenue accelerating from 14% growth to 20% growth in the coming quarters. iPad, Mac, and wearables are a major source of that growth acceleration. Considering how Apple is working off of a much larger revenue base, for revenue growth percentages to actually increase this far along in the process is intriguing. The takeaway is that Apple’s ecosystem is gaining momentum at a pace that should frighten the competition.

    Hundreds of millions of people will be buying their first Apple wearable device in the coming years. Given the inherent nature of wearable devices - new form factors designed to make technology more personal - it is very likely that one Apple wearable purchase will eventually lead to additional Apple wearable purchases. Apple can then leverage high-margin Services to run with more aggressive pricing on wearables (and other Apple devices) which only ends up boosting demand."

    How did you manage to miss what I said entirely? 


  • Reply 14 of 15
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,265member
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    KidGloves said:
    Doesn't look good for Samsung. The A51 is a midrange phone. This can't be right, can it?
    The figures are meaningless outside of iPhone land.

    The only way they would mean anything is if other manufacturers released the same amount of models every year.

    By design the Android market is tuned to less sales by model and more as a whole. 
    Yes, aka the "throw enough shit against the wall and hope some of it sticks" strategy, beloved by the knockoffs.
    Well, they must be doing something right as Apple is implementing a lot of that shit, right?

    The truth of the matter is that there really hasn't been a lot of shit at all from the biggest players by sales. 

    Dare I say all the current trends have been set by Android phones over the last four years. 

    Instead of going on the attack, why not admit that and urge Apple to up its game a bit? 

    Luckily they have at least moved in that direction but they are far from leading in some key areas. 


    Always, always, avon b7 goes back to the unit sales metric, aka "the church of marketshare" argument, never to user base, revenue, ASP, or profitability 


    https://www.ped30.com/2020/08/20/apple-huberty-second-hand-iphones/

    "Greater supply of used iPhones from trade-in programs helps expand Apple’s smartphone TAM [total addressable market] by 65%


    The iPhone SE, priced at $399, expands Apple’s smartphone addressable market into the sub $400 price band. 2Q20 IDC smartphone data suggests that the iPhone SE helped drive Apple share gains in every major region.

    However, we believe Apple’s share gain opportunity extends beyond the sale of new lower-priced iPhones

    The resale of used iPhones made possible by the accelerating adoption of trade-in programs makes the iPhone more accessible to an even larger percentage of consumers. We believe iPhones that are traded in are typically resold between $200 and $400, with the majority sold into emerging markets.

    Simply put, the proliferation of used iPhones and the coinciding strong market demand for used devices enables Apple to more aggressively sell into the sub $400 smartphone market, expanding the TAM by 65% and setting Apple up for future share gains."

    Looks like Apple continues its successful roadmap now based on a mere five different models, not some random feature list that drives the Android OS device market, to keep iPhone leading in revenues and profits. 

    Perhaps if Huawei didn't have to make so many different sub $200 models, or so many midrange models, or even so many flagship models, to compete in the Android OS device market, they could make the same returns as Apple, but as is, Huawei would have to sell something on the order of 800 million units a year to match Apple's profits from a mere 180 to 200 million units a year, and as you can see above, Apple does have a plan to keep increasing its iPhone user base beyond the current billion plus.


    and;

    https://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2020/8/12/apples-ecosystem-growth-is-accelerating

    "Looking ahead, my estimates have non-iPhone revenue accelerating from 14% growth to 20% growth in the coming quarters. iPad, Mac, and wearables are a major source of that growth acceleration. Considering how Apple is working off of a much larger revenue base, for revenue growth percentages to actually increase this far along in the process is intriguing. The takeaway is that Apple’s ecosystem is gaining momentum at a pace that should frighten the competition.

    Hundreds of millions of people will be buying their first Apple wearable device in the coming years. Given the inherent nature of wearable devices - new form factors designed to make technology more personal - it is very likely that one Apple wearable purchase will eventually lead to additional Apple wearable purchases. Apple can then leverage high-margin Services to run with more aggressive pricing on wearables (and other Apple devices) which only ends up boosting demand."

    How did you manage to miss what I said entirely? 


    I understood what you stated fine, and I noted that Apple's ecosystem, and iPhone user base, continues to grow, in spite of whatever first mover features Android OS devices gain. It is the ecosystem that is Apple's advantage, and for that, Apple can stick to its iPhone roadmap, and ignore the features battle that defines Android OS device competition.

    Perhaps if you would consider Apple holistically, instead of routinely defining the competition as only iPhone vs Huawei, you would be able to understand the limitations of Android OS devices. 
    edited September 2020 watto_cobrajony0chasm
  • Reply 15 of 15
    chasmchasm Posts: 2,370member
    Most shipped?
    1. Omdia, like all such pundits, is guessing.

    2. Even if you assume they are good at guessing, they base it on shipped rather than what most of us would think of as "sell-through" (to consumers) because shipping information is something they can get some reliable information about. Sell-through -- which in Apple's case mostly equals shipped (not always true with most others) -- is extremely hard to guess at, which is why pundits are so often very off in their guesses prior to actual figures being released. Now that Apple no longer releases its actual sell-through, and for the last quarter and this quarter isn't even offering guidance, we can see that the "estimators" really haven't got a clue without massive hints, so their opinions on "sales" is meaningless anyway.

    3. Shipped numbers are the standard by which all Android numbers have been estimated going all the way back, so at least its a more standard compare of guesses than Apple's "sales" versus everyone else's "shipped" numbers used to be.
Sign In or Register to comment.