cloudmobile

radarthekat said:

The story is basically the same one we've heard in every market in which Apple participates.  That being, Apple's sales are not growing as fast as the overall market.  What's new?  I'll bet Coach sales have rarely grown as fat as the overall handbag market.  All markets have segments, and the growth in the lower-priced, commoditized segments is almost always faster than the higher-priced premium segments.  No surprise there.  wheres the money being made, and is Apple profiting handsomely in its segment, while growing?  Thosecare the questions to ask.  

 On a side note, it seems Wall St likes to anchor on all the wrong things.  For example, if a company [Apple], participates in a market, Wall St myopically measures its success by focusing on just that one market, and usually the wrong metrics of true success (profit would be where I'd start, rarely where Wall St starts).  And what about measuring against other businesses.  If I own a coffee shop that does half as well as Starbucks, but three times as well as any other business in my neighborhood, guess what... I made a good decision to start a coffee shop rather than a hat store.  Apple is a better business than KO or AMZN, once you back up and look down from the 10,000' height.  And yet, bizarrely, it's assigned a significantly lower valuation than either.  

This is dumb. Not everything can be spun in favor of the ridiculous Windows to Mac/Android to iOS arguments. Amazon Prime Video competes in the same segment as does iTunes and offers similar prices for movie and TV rental. Amazon Prime is winning here because Prime offers BOTH the Netflix/Hulu model and the iTunes model. Pay the Prime subscription, you get all the basic content like the former. Pay to rent/buy you get the other content like iTunes. The difference between Amazon Prime and Netflix/Hulu is that paying for Amazon Prime also gets you free shipping on their shopping site, book deals etc. For people who already owned Kindles and were regular Amazon Prime shoppers, the Netflix/Hulu movie tier is free. And it is easier/more convenient to access the rented/bought content through Amazon Prime via your Roku or smart TV app than it is on iTunes, which you can only access either via your PC or on Apple TV. And where iTunes content can only be viewed on a single device, content bought or rented via Amazon Prime can be viewed on any device ... your Mac, iPad, Roku, smart TV and also via your web browser. Amazon Prime also offers an easy, convenient way to access HBO and other pay cable channels for cord cutters as well as a ton of exclusive content that isn't available anywhere else. Meanwhile iTunes does neither.

And this has nothing to do with whining about "look down from the 10000' height." You are only spewing that nonsense in order to evade the actual issue of the WSJ column. Which is that Apple is losing market share to Amazon Prime because Amazon offers a better service for people who are already Prime members than Apple does through iTunes. The reason is that Amazon Prime Video is a service that launched like 10 years ago and Amazon has continuously updated and improved it. I was an early adopter to Amazon Prime and it was brutal ... back then all you could do was download videos to a PC and view it with Windows Media Player, VLC or something like that. Making it essentially an inferior iTunes competitor, similar to what Amazon Music was back then. But Amazon built on that to make it pretty much the best streaming video service out there because you can get both the subscription content that Hulu and Netflix offers AND the rental/purchase options that iTunes, Vudu, Fandango and Google Play offers. And again, Prime, Vudu, Fandango and Google Play all offer primarily web-based clients, not resource-heavy desktop applications that was designed back in the mid-90s to download files over 2600 baud modem connections and hasn't had its core technology meaningfully updated since then like iTunes. Yes, I know that iTunes on iPad and iPhones are better solutions, but the Prime Video app is on those too (and works as good or better). The point is that the Prime solution is clearly better on everything BUT the iPad and iPhone, which for most people is their third option for watching movies after the TV and PC, especially if you are not one of the tiny percentage of the population that actually owns an Apple TV instead of a smart TV.

Bottom line: when you add the subscriptions to the rental/sales fees as well as the premium channel add-ons, Amazon is making more than Apple is with iTunes on movies and TV shows. But hey, Apple is making more on iPhones and iPads than Amazon is on Fire TV boxes, Kindles and Prime phones, right? That is the only comparison that you want to make, right? Because that is the only one that is favorable to you. Well, how about we compare the money that Apple is making on iCloud subscriptions versus how much Amazon is making on AWS? But I bet you think that enterprise AWS is a "commodity segment" right?

applecider said:

cloudmobile said:

"Apple alleges Qualcomm abuses its "monopoly power" of the mobile wireless chip market to skirt fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) patent commitments to charge customers exorbitant royalty rates." Android devices that have that same Qualcomm LTE tech in it costs as little as $120, and by this I mean LTE-enabled devices from name-brand companies like LG, Motorola, and Samsung that have the Qualcomm CPU in addition to the Qualcomm modem. Or, which is more likely in the case of Samsung LTE tablets - use their own Exynos SOC and modems for which they have to license the standards from Qualcomm. Finally, check Qualcomm's revenues. They are less than $25 billion a year. And they made a lot of stuff - networking equipment, satellite equipment, software and services - in addition to making and licensing modems and CPUs. Considering that Apple sells 250 million smartphones a year, there is no way that Apple is paying Qualcomm very much per device. Remember: Samsung sells like 350 million smartphones a year, and most of those are with Qualcomm CPUs AND modems. In fact, nearly all of the 1.5 billion smartphones sold each year have Qualcomm tech, or has tech that was licensed from Qualcomm, particularly if MediaTek (the manufacturer for the hardware used in nearly all the cheap Chinese and Indian mobile devices) has to pay Qualcomm royalties too, and I would imagine that they do. (The MediaTek chips are cheaper than the Intel ones .. but the Intel ones are much better.) So Apple isn't paying Qualcomm a whole lot. $1 billion a year sounds like a ton, but works out to about $4 an iPhone in return for 2G/3G/LTE capability. By contrast, Apple demanded that Samsung pay them licensing fees of $50 per device over "trade dress" stuff like rounded corners and the shape of app icons. Hopefully Qualcomm's lawyers will remind the judge of that very fact, and ask Apple to explain whether LTE capability is more important to a modern smartphone than trade dress. They would have a hard time claiming so, now that the current and upcoming iPhones look a lot more like the Samsung Galaxy S8 than they do the iPhone 3GS that Apple wanted Samsung to pay $50 a device for the privilege of making devices that looked somewhat similar to.

Reportedly apple  is paying qcom about $20 per iPhone which is a considerable amount.  This issue is complex, but qcom is or was getting paid royalties by the contract manufacturers and apple was paying in addition to this with some rebates supposedly.  To know what should be paid the whole concept of FRAND licensing comes into play.  I think that QCOM is true and fully screwed especially  in light of the recent Supreme Court decision on patent exhaustion.

It is curious. $20 per iPhone when a Moto G4 that has a Qualcomm SOC and a Qualcomm modem can be had for $149? I guess Qualcomm is charging more if the device costs more? If that be the case, $20 to Motorola means that they can no longer make and sell a quality device for $149. $20 off a $650 iPhone 7 on the other hand ... it is easy to see Qualcomm's point there even if you disagree with it because without 3G and LTE speeds far fewer people pay $650 for an iPhone.

Apple sells 250 million smartphones a year. At $20 a pop we are talking $5 billion per annum. That would mean that Apple alone is responsible for 1/5 to 1/4 of Qualcomm's $20-$25 billion in annual revenue. Which is hard to fathom when most of the 1.2 billion Android devices that get sold each year have the SOC too and not just the modem, devices from the $850 Galaxy S8+ at the high end to the ZTE ZMax Pro, which is the cheapest device with Qualcomm chips ($99) at the low end. And - as mentioned earlier - Qualcomm sells many more things than smartphone chips.

But considering that Qualcomm would still have 75% to 80% of their business even if you are right about the $20 per device Apple wins a complete victory and then abandons them entirely, then under no scenario are they "screwed." 1.2 billion Android devices annually - and they make more than smartphone chips - remember? And that is the worst case scenario. The far more likely scenario is Apple gaining a partial victory where they are paying Qualcomm about half what they are now, and Apple remaining with Qualcomm because they do, in fact, make the best chips. If you want gigabit LTE, for instance, Qualcomm is the only game in town right now. And gigabit LTE isn't even 5G. Who knows how long it will take before Intel or whoever else competes with Qualcomm can develop support for that.

So Apple will likely decide the same thing with Qualcomm as they did with Samsung concerning components: not liking them much but realizing they are better off with them than without them.

rotateleftbyte said:

fmalloy said:

Amazing the pure, naive adulation for All Things Apple. Apple can sue the hell out of anyone and everyone, but if someone does it to them, oh poor Apple the victim. Fanboys...smh...

Sometimes Apple deserved to be sued. somtimes, it is just another company wanting a big payday.
A lot of suits are filed against Apple because it is Apple and they have really, really big pockets.
In the case of QC, they are 'double dipping' which following from the USSC ruling on Lexmark printer Cartridges is a big no-no. Apple are IMHO really hoping applies to them and QC can't charge Apple a license fee based upon the retail price of the device that contains their IP.
We shall just have to sit back, enjoy the popcorn and wait for something to happen.

Is Qualcomm double-dipping with Apple but no one else, including companies whose devices cost a fraction of what Apple costs?

slurpy said:

sirlance99 said:

cali said:

Apple should just pull the plug on this knockoff manufacturer and we'll see record profit DROPS. 

Then you won't have an iPhone or Macbooks. 

You HONESTLY think it would be impossible for Apple to make an iPhone or a Macbook without Samsung? Give me a fucking break. Yes, Samsung is a massive supplier, but they didn't exist Apple would simply be using someone else. It's not like Samsung's memory chips, SSD, or anything else give some unique advantage to the iPhone. 

Not getting the point are you? Samsung's components are the best. They make the best memory chips. They make the best screens. And because of their size, they are actually able to supply the best components for less money than anyone else. Sure, Apple could buy curved OLED screens from LG, Sony or Corning. Google is working with LG on curved OLED screens for future Pixel devices. But Google HOPES to sell 3 million Pixels in 2018. Apple NEEDS to sell 250 million iPhones. Understand the difference? And Google will pay MORE for those 3 million screens from LG than Apple will from Samsung FOR SCREENS THAT ARE BETTER. Google can get away with losing margin on a few million fanboy devices that are of inferior quality. But for Apple to pay more for 250 million screens that aren't as good? That is madness.

Despite what you want to believe, Apple's superior products are the result of their obtaining superior components. The supply chain? Tim Cook's specialty FOR DECADES. If Apple uses inferior components, then their iPhones and iPads won't be as good. The hardware won't be as good. And the software will even suffer because of the bad hardware. By contrast, Samsung, who will have the best parts BECAUSE THEY MAKE THOSE PARTS THEMSELVES will have a hardware advantage because their hardware will be constructed from better parts. And the hardware advantage will make the software advantage that iOS and iOS apps have over Android and Android apps that much less pronounced. You will have inferior operating system and apps, but running on better hardware versus superior operating system and apps running on inferior hardware. At best it is a wash. But Apple can't afford a wash when the iPhone costs twice as much as some Android devices with similar features. Not Samsung, who actually charges more than Apple for the Galaxy S and Note devices, but, say, Motorola, who charges only $399 for their flagships, and OnePlus who charges $450 for theirs, and Asus who charges about $350, and Huawei who charges about the same.

Apple fans need to realize: Samsung's selling 300 million smartphones a year that cost an average of $250 does not take anything away from Apple's selling 250 million smartphones a year that cost an average of $600. Apple and Samsung benefit from each other's success. Both realize this, and this is why they aren't suing each other anymore. Samsung's success hurts Google more than it hurts Apple. It is because of Samsung's refusal to make and sell Android wearable, IoT and TV devices that the Wear, Brillo (now Things) and TV platforms are such failures. (Well maybe not Android TV, as Sony supports that platform for their smart TVs, and them plus a few other manufacturers means that about half a million Android TV devices get moved a month. Which isn't great, but considering that the competition is Roku, Apple TV and Fire TV, none of which are setting the market on fire either, and it means that they are still in the game.) The market share of Tizen-based smartwatches, appliances and smart TVs dwarfs Google's non-smartphone offerings, just as their Gear VR crushed Google's Cardboard and Daydream. Bixby is going to crush Google Assistant also, because Samsung is going to push it to their smart TVs, smart watches and smart appliances - all running Tizen - in addition to their smartphones when it is ready. And Google can't do a thing about it, because they know that if they lose Samsung, that will be like 60% of the market share of premium Android devices. (LG, HTC, Motorola and Huawei basically combine for the rest, and a lot of those "premium" devices cost much less than an iPhone 7, and cost about the same as an iPhone SE). But enough about that. Samsung is not Apple's enemy. You only have that ridiculous mindset if you resent the fact that Apple has competition at all ... that they don't own like 95% of the smartphone space the way they dominated the (much smaller!) MP3 player industry 10-15 years ago. As it is, Samsung is no real threat to Apple while supplying Apple the best components - and design ideas! - for their own devices. I can't imagine a better situation to be in. Especially since the anti-trust regulators in the US and EU would step in if Apple were any more dominant than they are now, just as they acted against AT&T and Microsoft back in the day, and (the EU at least) are hammering Google right now. That's right ... no Samsung and the DOJ and the EU are shaking down Apple for all the billions they could get their grubby paws on. Would that make you happier just so long as it means that everyone is forced to buy an iPhone whether they want or would benefit from a competing product or not? If that is what you really feel, then you sound like those people from the Wintel PC monopoly from not so long ago. Aren't you choosing good role models to emulate? And even then: you had different manufacturers to choose from: IBM, Lenovo, HP, Dell, Toshiba, Packard Bell etc. so you could pick from any number of configurations. But in you guys' world, your choices would be the iPhone 7, the iPhone 7 Plus and the iPhone SE. Actually no, it would just be the iPhone 7, as it is only due to the need to compete with Samsung and Android that the 7 Plus and SE exist in the first place. Case in point: the need to compete with cheaper Android devices is why the iPad Mini existed. Now that there is no longer any real competition from Android in tablets (Google doesn't even make Pixel or Nexus tablets anymore) the iPad Mini doesn't exist anymore either, and now an entry level iPad costs $350 instead of $225, and the smallest iPad is now 9.7' instead of under 8'.

But hey, you guys are right. Who needs competition with all that consumer choice that it creates? We want uniformity! We want to pay MORE for FEWER features and LESS innovation that would exist in a world without Android, Google and Samsung! One where the only real competition would be Nokia Symbian and Windows 8 devices fighting over 15% market share! Right?