sacto joe

avon b7 said:

Android as a platform may be flat - but it's flat at 80%!!! Can you see the difference?

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

StrangeDays said:

avon b7 said:

StrangeDays said:

avon b7 said:

onepotato said:

Everyone knows it's market share that really matters, just ask the pundits.

No need to ask only the 'pundits'. If you plan on offering services or consumables to your customers, marketshare is a key metric. If your platform depends on active, revenue generating developers, marketshare is also a key factor.

All of Apple's move's over the last few years have included measures to shore up handset sales and increase them. It has been a radical shift but in spite of those measures, sales have remained flat or dipped YoY.

Even the most persistent rumours for 2020 include yet more measures to stimulate handset growth (new SE model released out of the habitual refresh).

At the end of the day we are all 'pundits', just in different capacities. That includes Apple management, shareholders, users, competitors.

When Apple releases software targeting Android users to make switching easier, by definition, they are chasing marketshare.

When Apple opens up its services to Android users it is also chasing marketshare.

Perhaps the question you should ask yourself is how much marketshare is necessary to keep the business healthy. But at the end of the day it is still marketshare.

You should also compare Apple's handset business model and compare it to 2015. What has changed and more importantly, why?

There have been massive changes and they didn't come about through experimentation. They came about through necessity.

Nah. Your "but market share!" examples are services. Services which are not tethered to hardware, so there's absolutely no reason not to sell Apple Music on Android. Services is a different business model than hardware. Apple is king of hardware, and is also adding services. And interestingly it became king of hardware while needing developers, yet still didn't foolishly chase market share by making cheapies like your Chinese knockoffs. Just like they didn't make netbooks.

Even during the heyday of peak iPhone, everyone knew and commented upon that the historic, never-before-seen-on-earth success of the iPhone could not last forever. That is normal, expected, and not the sign of desperate flailing you like to pretend it is. Absolutely no one thought it would be otherwise.

Marketshare doesn't 'see' hardware or software. It is simply marketshare. More or less important depending on your business but important nevertheless.

Apple has been making frequent references to 'installed base' of late with nothing relevant to make any sense of it. With such a vast pool of customers, it had no need to widen product spreads, reduce pricing etc (applying your logic from the last few years).

And if the 'success could not last forever', then they would have factored a contraction into their business forecasts anyway. Of course they didn't do that at all. They actually overstated and ended up issuing a profit warning and admitted 'miscalculating'. Pundits, eh?

The success couldn't last forever. No, It never does. But, it didn't have to fall off as much as it did either. Since 2017 Apple has been continuously modifying its handset business strategy and ALL of the changes have been focused on breaking out of over three years of flat sales and preventing more YoY contraction. They upped iPhone pricing (X series - 2017) for revenue (not marketshare) and it didn't turn things around. They persisted with high prices in the following cycle (2018) and it backfired in a massive way (front page, high trade-in discounts appeared virtually immediately, plus direct discounts in China). All the while, the actual product fell way behind competitors in key areas and those competitors waded into Apple's ultra premium band. The following cycle (2019), brought more massive changes. Much better hardware and most importantly - price reductions on its projected top sellers and notably a price drop on the XR.

It is slow to manoeuvre because of its annual refresh cycle and even that is rumoured to change next year in an attempt to make its handset business more agile and competitive.

Its competitors are firmly camped in the ultra premium band and growing sales. That pie is only so big and, as this article suggests, Apple is taking less share of the available profits. Those same competitors are now also pumping their flagship technologies down into the lower bands too. As a result we are now seeing rumours of Apple possibly entering the middle ground with exactly the same thinking.

It wants marketshare. It needs marketshare, and with 80% of the handset market to go for, it should definitely try to grab some more.

"Absolutely no one thought it would be otherwise"

Really?

You have persistently taken issue with what I have suggested Apple do over the last few years and the reasons why.

Just about everything I have suggested has been implemented by Apple.

You clearly thought it would be otherwise.

Geeze, get real.

1) Yes, it absolutely matters whether we're talking hardware or services. There is not a compelling reason for Apple not to market a service like music or TV across platforms for added market share. The cost of the service is basically fixed and each added customer increases margin. Inversely, there is not a compelling reason for Apple to sell its tablet at cost/minimal-profit for added market share, because with every single sale margin takes a hit. One incurs loss of margin, the other increases margin. That's the difference. It has nothing to do with market share as thing of value all by itself. It isn't. Context matters. And in Apple terms, margin is usually that context that matters most, and that's why they focus on ASP and margins rather than worshipping at the Church of Market Share as you people go on about. (See "netbooks, lack of" -ed.)

2) No, no reasonable person thought there was going to be unlimited iPhone growth, and that was talked about frequently over the years. No reasonable person believes in perpetual motion machines, either. My taking issue with the dim things you often say, in no way infers I believe infinite iPhone growth is a thing. You're free to review my post history and quote me if you believe I have ever, ever advocated believe in or expectation of infinite growth. You'll be wasting your time tho, so you won't. 

3) Your crappy knockoff brands participating in the knockoff-premium band may incur growth, but that's because they're starting at the bottom of the pyramid, not the top of it where Apple is at the real premium band. This shouldn't need explaining. 

I love how you believe Apple has implemented everything you have suggested. Absurd, of course, but you keep doing you!

I got real years ago. That should be clear at this point.

You claim there is no real reason NOT to market Apple services across platforms. Perhaps you need reminding that right up to the announcement of Apple's TV service, nobody had any idea if it would be limited to Apple's platform or not. The thinking of some was that it was all going to form part of the so-called eco-system or lock-in as others call it.

In my eyes it made sense to widen the reach of Apple's TV services but that is just my opinion and while some shared it, others didn't, as they had their own reasons.

Implying it was a given is incorrect. It wasn't - right up to the official announcement. Nobody knew what its reach would be and nobody knew the pricing.

The cost of each service is not 'basically fixed'. There are delivery considerations (bandwidth, infrastructure, energy consumption etc) plus advertising, service and support and licencing. All subject to change for varying reasons.

Then there is the cost of content production for TV that can vary widely. As new countries come on board, so does the need of native content, plus in some key markets, dubbing.

Things are more complicated than saying 'each new customer increases margin', although, undoubtedly, that is the plan long term. Right now, and under the current (zero/low cost) roll out, Apple is probably losing money on TV services.

Some Apple users have smugly sat around and claimed there is no money to be had in catering to Android users as they have little disposable income and don't spend it on Apps and Services. That was never ever true but we regularly get articles about how the App store brings in most of the revenues of that particular pie. Android users spend billions too and Apple, quite rightly, wants in on some of that. Again, the source of this article suggests Apple is losing percentage points on handset derived profits. Well, those lost profits are going elsewhere and it isn't RIM. Yes, I know these figures fluctuate and Apple will increase its percentage due to seasonal factors but the last few years of data on its handset business are there and unquestionable. Apple's massive changes in strategy are also there and are attempts to turn things around. All in response to competiton.

Apple doesn't want flat sales and is not happy with flat sales. At this point, anyone trying to claim the situation is somehow normal, expected and foreseeable (pundits, eh?) is simply not paying attention to what is happening and what has happened.

We spent years talking about a supercycle. A supercycle that hasn't, openly at least, increased handset sales. A supercycle that was suggested and based on reasonable logic. You know, all the stereotypes, eco-system, lock-in, brand loyalty, better product, it just works etc.

I've gone on record numerous times as suggesting 'what if the supercycle actually happened but no one saw it?'.

Apple definitely knows but no one has really dug into Cook to find an answer. Apple knows, right down to the individual, who upgraded and who didn't. It's in the Apple IDs.

There are basically three possibilities.

It didn't happen
It happened but no one saw it
It happened but over such a long period that its impact was diluted.

None of those are what I would call desirable scenarios.

What is clear is that iPhone has suffered as a product over the last few years - in every way. 

You are wrong to throw iPad into an iPhone discussion but the iPad is already (and has been for some time) a very affordable product and one that hasn't seen such intense competition. Even so, it had it very own 'crisis' in the eyes of some. The presence of an expensive pro model doesn't change anything. Nor does the presence of an ultra expensive iPhone.

This is about iPhone, not iPad. It is not casual that iPhone has been the backbone of Apple's success and even to this day remains the key driver. While that remains true, iPhone will be one of the pillars of Apple.

It is not about if I can quote you on saying Apple would need 'infinite' growth. You are throwing 'infinite' in here to then say 'hey, I never said that'. Of course I never even mentioned infinite growth in the first place.

No, the point is that you claimed none of what has happened would actually happen. 

Not that that in itself really has any bearing on anything. Being 'right' or 'wrong' when you are giving a simple opinion or speculating doesn't mean that much.

What is more relevant is how people counter opinions or speculation with 'absolutes', as if they could possibly 'know' in the first place. And how, in the process, they throw in insults (veiled or otherwise). You have done both.

My responses in this thread are based on a mix of fact, opinion and speculation. The numbers are there. The official comments are there. The massive changes in Apple's handset strategy are there.

Apple's iPhone segment, today, is at eight times the profitability of Huawei, even including Huawei's greater unit sales, and Apple has used those profits to keep it's growing iPhone user base, at between 900 million and a billion users, quite happily buying other Apple devices and services. A virtuous cycle for Apple, even with "flat" iPhone sales between 180 and 220 million units a year.

Meanwhile, the best that Huawei can expect, is consolidation of the Android device industry in China leaving Apple, Samsung, and Huawei, in decreasing order, splitting the profits. I recall your comment on Xiaomi, when they stated their goal would be to maintain a profitability of 5% in smartphone sales, that "I could do something with that!". Well, it's barely registering any profit share at all, yet still sells large numbers of smartphones, but the effect on the Android device market is to keep margins extremely low for all of, and only, Android device builders, including Huawei.

Maybe your concern trolling of Apple's iPhone business, which you engage in whenever possible based almost entirely on its unit sales, would be better redirected to why Huawei hasn't yet exceeded Samsung in unit sales, and likely won't ever.

If you bring Huawei into things it is to focus on part of the competition. Likewise Xiaomi.

Yes, Chinese brands are part of the reason Apple has stalled on handset sales. Do you disagree?

Their profitability is irrelevant from an Apple perspective. When you are profitable to the tune of billions, though, it is enough. And the proof is in the pudding: the product. Apple has been playing catch-up.

Apple has reacted (is still reacting) to reality.

Look at all the changes in its handset strategy from 2017. Apple made those changes for clear reasons.

Try to imagine the situation today if those changes hadn't been made. Shudder the thought.

"... Apple has used those profits to keep it's growing iPhone user base, at between 900 million and a billion users, quite happily buying other Apple devices and services. A virtuous cycle for Apple, even with "flat" iPhone sales between 180 and 220 million units a year."

This is incorrect. Money can't keep a user base at specific levels. As I said before, unless someone fleshes out that billion users, the number is pretty much worthless. I'm definitely in there although my iOS devices do nothing for Apple and aren't being updated. Is it not reasonable to expect that every long term Apple user is in a similar situation. Or worse, and I give myself as an example again. My more current mobile hardware is not from Apple. That revenue went elsewhere.

If Xiaomi registers large sales but little profitability, it means those sales didn't go to a competitor, ultimately affecting the competitor's revenues and profitability. That's competition and why users don't care about the profitability of the manufacturer. They care about the product. For the record Xiaomi recently overtook Huawei in Spanish handset sales although Huawei Spain revenues are up, the company has its largest non Chinese flagship store in Madrid with another flagship store to open in Barcelona next year.

There are also rumours of Huawei seeking to open a huge manufacturing base within the EU.

Trump has really shot himself in the foot over Huawei. They are also seeking to increase manufacturing in South Korea and have signed multi billion dollar deals with Japanese companies. Meanwhile, U.S companies can only read the news and weep.

Today, with Trump bans and tantrums at 100%, Huawei said that handset sales could hit 230 million for 2018. That's a massive increase over 2017. And without a global launch for the Mate 30 Pro. One of the very best phones of 2019.

There you have yet another example of protectionism.

All while Apple takes in collateral damage for political shenanigans. 

Yeah, so about that 230 million units sold. Apple is making eight times more profit from selling 200 million units.  

That is, in the corporate world, the bottom line, driven by ASP and Margins on hardware and supported by the wide Apple ecosystem of hardware and software that users love.


Oh, and here's a link that you won't like;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/12/chinas-huawei-may-need-two-three-years-recover-us-trade-ban-ceo-says/

As I said, profitability (in the sense of who is more profitable) is irrevelant.

Just ask Apple, which has been changing its handset movements for three years now looking for a way to increase demand.

Why wouldn't I like the link?

Trump has lost the respect of his peers. The day he took office there were some very negative comments caught from EU officials.

Huawei is perhaps a focus point to much about which the U.S has earned its negative reputation from abroad but many nations have taken note and are already reacting.

The only thing he has done long term damage to is the U.S itself.

Far from protecting U.S influence and technological advancement, he has dramatically accelerated the advancement of other companies and countries. Billions lost in revenues. Billions that will go to Chinese and other non-U.S interests. Billions that will be invested in competing R&D.

You are already seeing the fallout and the year hasn't even ended. Huawei has consistently produced some of the best handsets out there. This year alone it has pumped out massive new technologies. And in a tit for tat move, China has ordered a rip and replace order that will have an impact on U.S communications interests over the coming years.

The next part involves Huawei Mobile Services. The genie is out of that bottle thanks to Trump and it's not going back even if Google gets a licence.

The situation is mindboggingly absurd but there you have it. Huawei is becoming even more vertically integrated thanks to Trump.

Every new teardown sees HiSilicon pop up again and again.

Without the entity list, it is very likely Huawei would have overtaken Samsung this year.

Yes, there has been a big impact on Huawei but I'll leave it to you to figure out who is going to hurt more.

avon b7 said:

StrangeDays said:

avon b7 said:

onepotato said:

Everyone knows it's market share that really matters, just ask the pundits.

No need to ask only the 'pundits'. If you plan on offering services or consumables to your customers, marketshare is a key metric. If your platform depends on active, revenue generating developers, marketshare is also a key factor.

All of Apple's move's over the last few years have included measures to shore up handset sales and increase them. It has been a radical shift but in spite of those measures, sales have remained flat or dipped YoY.

Even the most persistent rumours for 2020 include yet more measures to stimulate handset growth (new SE model released out of the habitual refresh).

At the end of the day we are all 'pundits', just in different capacities. That includes Apple management, shareholders, users, competitors.

When Apple releases software targeting Android users to make switching easier, by definition, they are chasing marketshare.

When Apple opens up its services to Android users it is also chasing marketshare.

Perhaps the question you should ask yourself is how much marketshare is necessary to keep the business healthy. But at the end of the day it is still marketshare.

You should also compare Apple's handset business model and compare it to 2015. What has changed and more importantly, why?

There have been massive changes and they didn't come about through experimentation. They came about through necessity.

Nah. Your "but market share!" examples are services. Services which are not tethered to hardware, so there's absolutely no reason not to sell Apple Music on Android. Services is a different business model than hardware. Apple is king of hardware, and is also adding services. And interestingly it became king of hardware while needing developers, yet still didn't foolishly chase market share by making cheapies like your Chinese knockoffs. Just like they didn't make netbooks.

Even during the heyday of peak iPhone, everyone knew and commented upon that the historic, never-before-seen-on-earth success of the iPhone could not last forever. That is normal, expected, and not the sign of desperate flailing you like to pretend it is. Absolutely no one thought it would be otherwise.

Marketshare doesn't 'see' hardware or software. It is simply marketshare. More or less important depending on your business but important nevertheless.

Apple has been making frequent references to 'installed base' of late with nothing relevant to make any sense of it. With such a vast pool of customers, it had no need to widen product spreads, reduce pricing etc (applying your logic from the last few years).

And if the 'success could not last forever', then they would have factored a contraction into their business forecasts anyway. Of course they didn't do that at all. They actually overstated and ended up issuing a profit warning and admitted 'miscalculating'. Pundits, eh?

The success couldn't last forever. No, It never does. But, it didn't have to fall off as much as it did either. Since 2017 Apple has been continuously modifying its handset business strategy and ALL of the changes have been focused on breaking out of over three years of flat sales and preventing more YoY contraction. They upped iPhone pricing (X series - 2017) for revenue (not marketshare) and it didn't turn things around. They persisted with high prices in the following cycle (2018) and it backfired in a massive way (front page, high trade-in discounts appeared virtually immediately, plus direct discounts in China). All the while, the actual product fell way behind competitors in key areas and those competitors waded into Apple's ultra premium band. The following cycle (2019), brought more massive changes. Much better hardware and most importantly - price reductions on its projected top sellers and notably a price drop on the XR.

It is slow to manoeuvre because of its annual refresh cycle and even that is rumoured to change next year in an attempt to make its handset business more agile and competitive.

Its competitors are firmly camped in the ultra premium band and growing sales. That pie is only so big and, as this article suggests, Apple is taking less share of the available profits. Those same competitors are now also pumping their flagship technologies down into the lower bands too. As a result we are now seeing rumours of Apple possibly entering the middle ground with exactly the same thinking.

It wants marketshare. It needs marketshare, and with 80% of the handset market to go for, it should definitely try to grab some more.

"Absolutely no one thought it would be otherwise"

Really?

You have persistently taken issue with what I have suggested Apple do over the last few years and the reasons why.

Just about everything I have suggested has been implemented by Apple.

You clearly thought it would be otherwise.

dysamoria said:

maestro64 said:

Folks, 

Lithium and Cobalt come from various sources around the world, I have no idea if all these mines regions use the most ethical methods, but Congo is not the only source.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-top-lithium-producing-countries-in-the-world.html
https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/battery-metals-investing/cobalt-investing/top-cobalt-producing-countries-congo-china-canada-russia-australia/

Grant it Congo is number 1 for Cobalt, but there is lots of other sources. China is the largest investor in the Congo for mining keep this in mind.

There is no proof Apple or any of these company actually source out of the Congo. The problem is many time the minerals from many regions get combined during the entire supply chain process. Even if Apple required their supplier not to use Congo sources minerals it becomes very hard to isolate the Congo materials. One way Apple and many companies use to monitor if Congo minerals show up in their supply chain is to test material for radio isotopes since each region of the world have specific isotopes in their minerals. But if any supply chain at any time had Congo minerals or neighboring countries in there supply, it will contaminate the entire supply chain's isotopes. Using these markers is only good if the supply chain never had Congo minerals.

They are suing Apple since it get clicks and create outrage in the outrage culture. Since they would have to prove Apple supply chain specifically sources out of the Congo. I personally suspect Apple and other US companies requires its supply chain not to specifically source out the Congo due to the Current US required on the Conflict Mineral reports requirements each year. We know that Apple has been focused on responsible sourcing for many years even before the Conflict Mineral requirement came in 4 yrs ago.

“Outrage culture”...? It’s all just the same to you? Child labor, sexual assault, slave wages, racism... It’s all just an undesirable irritation to you? We should all just allow every unethical and abusive act to go on and on, so that there’s none of this bothersome outrage for you to know about?

I’ve heard it said that “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention”.

I’ll offer a variation: “If you’re not outraged, it’s because you’re too comfortable with your own unrecognized privilege, or you’re just plain callous.”

Then there’s this one: “All that is needed for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.”

I’ll offer up this variation: “Nothing bad gets fixed when people are bullied into silence by contentment culture”.