Apple Grabs 17% of Worldwide Smartphone Sales in Third Quarter

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/11/12/apple-grabs-17-of-worldwide-smartphone-sales-in-third-quarter/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article/2009/11/12/104330-gartner_3Q09_smartphones.png

Worldwide Smartphone Sales in 3Q09 in Thousands of Units (Source: Gartner)

Research firm Gartner today issued a report (http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1224645) covering worldwide mobile phone sales for the third quarter of 2009. The highlight of the data for Apple is the company's third-place showing in the smartphone category, grabbing 17.1% of that market in finishing behind market leader Nokia and Research in Motion.Apple's worldwide smartphone share reached 17 per cent as iPhone sales totalled 7 million units in the third quarter of 2009 following the continued rollout of the iPhone 3GS in new countries. Its ASP is holding steady and sales in the fourth quarter should be even stronger as Apple starts selling in China, through one additional carrier in the UK, and in an additional 16 countries.
Overall, the mobile phone market experienced only 0.1% growth over the year-ago quarter, but smartphones continued their strong performance, growing 12.8% year-over-year to represent.

Apple's share of the smartphone market has fluctuated significantly since the device's 2007 introduction as purchasing patterns have been affected by the company's product release cycle, seasonal variations in the industry, and introductions into new countries or wireless carriers. The general trend, however, indicates that Apple continues to outperform its competitors in the mobile phone industry as it builds market share in the fastest growing segment in the industry.


http://images.macrumors.com/article/2009/11/12/103255-gartner_iphone_trend.png


Article Link: Apple Grabs 17% of Worldwide Smartphone Sales in Third Quarter (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/11/12/apple-grabs-17-of-worldwide-smartphone-sales-in-third-quarter/)

[kroeks]

WOOOW look at how high it is compared to HTC!

[CherryJul]

Very impressive. Go Apple! :)

[Mark Booth]

Palm has fallen so low it's lumped in with "others"!

Bye bye Palm! I'm sure glad I'm not a Pre owner!

Mark

[OllyW]

Palm has fallen so low it's lumped in with "others"!

So is Apple in the Worldwide computer sales figures. :p

[theheadguy]

Palm has fallen so low it's lumped in with "others"! Bye bye Palm! I'm sure glad I'm not a Pre owner!

Although I normally wouldn't respond to a childish remark, it's worth noting that I own a Pre and love it. I had an iPhone 1st gen and 3g; they're overrated (at this point). I see some very cool patents ahead that may make me switch back, but the Pre is awesome and fast; although light on both the quantity and quality of apps available.

[FelixDerKater]

Once Apple cuts its formal ties with AT&T, this number could go up a fair bit in the US.

Then again, I played with the Motorola and HTC Droids last night, and there is a lot of potential in the pipeline from the Android camps, even if this current generation doesn't turn too many heads.

I would be surprised if Google didn't weaken its iPhone content offerings in favor of its own platform.

[dan5.5]

It's crazy that apple has such marshare with only 2 models selling. All the other manufactures make 10x the models that apple has

[BVeritas]

I would be surprised if Google didn't weaken its iPhone content offerings in favor of its own platform.

Since Google had two goals for Android (knock off WinMo and increase mobile ads), I think you'll see all of Google's offerings on the iPhone, including the Google GPS.

[*LTD*]

RIM's about to get creamed.

[Wolfie Scooter]

Apple's share of the smartphone market has fluctuated significantly since the device's 2007 introduction as purchasing patterns have been affected by the company's product release cycle, seasonal variations in the industry, and introductions into new countries or wireless carriers. The general trend, however, indicates that Apple continues to outperform its competitors in the mobile phone industry as it builds market share in the fastest growing segment in the industry.



RIM's about to get creamed.

My math shows RIM grew more from year-ago quarter than Apple.

[Mattie Num Nums]

RIM's about to get creamed.

Again, with all of your Pro Apple comments, everyone else is crap comments, RIM just like Microsoft will always have a stranglehold on the business sector. Thats the money market right there. iPhones thus far in our environment have been pretty much a disaster.

[OllyW]

My math shows RIM grew more from year-ago quarter than Apple.

IDC (http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp;jsessionid=P0AM2YXUIDHEWCQJAFDCFFAKBEAVAIWD?containerId=prUS22070109) agree with you.

[kdarling]

RIM's about to get creamed.

That's an odd conclusion, since the chart shows that RIM gained 4.9% in share, as compared to Apple's 4.2% gain.

It's other companies that are feeling the pressure more.

[iGod 2.0]

We're coming for you RIM...We're gonna get 'cha...gonna get 'cha. :apple:

[*LTD*]

Only a matter of time before the iPhone overtakes RIM. It's only a 3% or so gap now. In only two years. One model (counting the 3G as well). RIM is a one-trick pony and it shows.

[pittmantechno]

Owning phones from these other so called smart phone manufacturers -
makes you wonder if the iPhone should be in the same category eh ?

how about Apple 100% kick ass phone sales for this Quarter

=)

[BVeritas]

Again, with all of your Pro Apple comments, everyone else is crap comments, RIM just like Microsoft will always have a stranglehold on the business sector. Thats the money market right there. iPhones thus far in our environment have been pretty much a disaster.

We recently converted our 500 users from RIM to iPhones. Saved a ton of money (no RIM server or RIM licensing) and our employees are very happy. Had all of the security features needed in our enterprise (we are demanding too). We're considering MobilMe as well, the find my phone feature is very attractive.

[smiddlehurst]

Once Apple cuts its formal ties with AT&T, this number could go up a fair bit in the US.

Then again, I played with the Motorola and HTC Droids last night, and there is a lot of potential in the pipeline from the Android camps, even if this current generation doesn't turn too many heads.

I would be surprised if Google didn't weaken its iPhone content offerings in favor of its own platform.

Why would it? Google doesn't make money off of Android and doesn't really get a massive boost of brand recognition off it either, especially now it's being reskinned by manufacturers. They want to drive services to their web offerings and having the same feature-rich applications on multiple platforms does just that. Doesn't make sense to limit that functionality if they don't have to or without a DAMN good reason to do otherwise.

[Wolfie Scooter]

Only a matter of time before the iPhone overtakes RIM. It's only a 3% or so gap now. In only two years. One model (counting the 3G as well). RIM is a one-trick pony and it shows.

These type of comments just baffle me. In the typically strongest iPhone quarter (just after the release of the new model), Apple actually lost ground against RIM in % marketshare.

[dXTC]

RIM's about to get creamed.

As Mattie Num Nums explained, RIM will continue to do well in the business sector.

Nokia is the one that should be worried.

[Cydonia]

""There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance," said Ballmer. "It's a $500 subsidized item. They may make a lot of money. But if you actually take a look at the 1.3 billion phones that get sold, I'd prefer to have our software in 60% or 70% or 80% of them, than I would to have 2% or 3%, which is what Apple might get.""

Steve Ballmer:mad:

[Mattie Num Nums]

We recently converted our 500 users from RIM to iPhones. Saved a ton of money (no RIM server or RIM licensing) and our employees are very happy. Had all of the security features needed in our enterprise (we are demanding too). We're considering MobilMe as well, the find my phone feature is very attractive.

How are you managing permissions via servers? AD credentials? Remote Wipes? Sounds to me like your company may need to do more research. Cost savings is one thing but security is another. We have over 50,000 employees here and Blackberry is the way to go.

[Speedy2]

We recently converted our 500 users from RIM to iPhones. Saved a ton of money (no RIM server or RIM licensing) and our employees are very happy. Had all of the security features needed in our enterprise (we are demanding too). We're considering MobilMe as well, the find my phone feature is very attractive.

How are you managing permissions via servers? AD credentials? Remote Wipes? Sounds to me like your company may need to do more research. Cost savings is one thing but security is another. We have over 50,000 employees here and Blackberry is the way to go.


You two are both in different business segments. OBVIOUSLY. And yet you both talk to each other as if you would know exactly what's best for the other. The iPhone is absolutely fine for smaller businesses. No one here with a sane mind would doubt that Blackberry has a far better position in large businesses. So, you are both right & wrong.

[BVeritas]

How are you managing permissions via servers? AD credentials? Remote Wipes? Sounds to me like your company may need to do more research. Cost savings is one thing but security is another. We have over 50,000 employees here and Blackberry is the way to go.

We modified this document to fit our needs. The big payoff for us is the ability to create our enterprise tailored apps (with their own embedded security policy). LDAP provides most of our access control policy.

http://manuals.info.apple.com/en_US/Enterprise_Deployment_Guide.pdf

Certainly, your policies have grown and include a lot more legacy problems that we have, but rolling it out to a trial department helps identify areas of concern.

[JGowan]

""There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance," said Ballmer. "It's a $500 subsidized item. They may make a lot of money. But if you actually take a look at the 1.3 billion phones that get sold, I'd prefer to have our software in 60% or 70% or 80% of them, than I would to have 2% or 3%, which is what Apple might get. - Steve BallmerBrilliant quote from a brilliant visionary.

[JGowan]

When Apple becomes a free agent and lands into multiple U.S. carriers, the numbers are going to be insane! I imagine the iPhone they introduce when this happens is going to be one they've been holding back on. It's going to be sweet!

[OllyW]

""There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance," said Ballmer. "It's a $500 subsidized item. They may make a lot of money. But if you actually take a look at the 1.3 billion phones that get sold, I'd prefer to have our software in 60% or 70% or 80% of them, than I would to have 2% or 3%, which is what Apple might get.""

Steve Ballmer:mad:

He wasn't far off with the 2% or 3% figure for Apple's share of the total world phone market, it's just his 60% or 70% share for phones with Microsoft's software which is laughable. ;)

[alent1234]

How are you managing permissions via servers? AD credentials? Remote Wipes? Sounds to me like your company may need to do more research. Cost savings is one thing but security is another. We have over 50,000 employees here and Blackberry is the way to go.

a lot of that is managed straight from the MS Exchange System Manager. there is even a podcast about it, but i forgot the name.

in a lot of companies the IT department isn't a bunch of nazis that feel they need to control every little thing just for the sake of being controlling. i don't manage BES anymore but where i work we allow people to install apps and do other things with their phones. never had an issue

[diamond.g]

We modified this document to fit our needs. The big payoff for us is the ability to create our enterprise tailored apps (with their own embedded security policy). LDAP provides most of our access control policy.

http://manuals.info.apple.com/en_US/Enterprise_Deployment_Guide.pdf

Certainly, your policies have grown and include a lot more legacy problems that we have, but rolling it out to a trial department helps identify areas of concern.

How do you roll out iphones and be able to use them without iTunes being installed on every desktop? (Or even how would you block iTunes from getting out to the internet...)

[BongoBanger]

""There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance," said Ballmer. "It's a $500 subsidized item.

OK, let's look at that statment.

They may make a lot of money.

They certainly do.

But if you actually take a look at the 1.3 billion phones that get sold

Ah. So we're talking total mobile phone sales, not smartphone sales.

I'd prefer to have our software in 60% or 70% or 80% of them

I'm sure you would Steve. It's never, ever going to happen though.

than I would to have 2% or 3%, which is what Apple might get

It's about 2-3% isn't it.

So apart from the laughable wishful thinking about WinMo he's right, isn't he?

[kdarling]

He wasn't far off with the 2% or 3% figure for Apple's share of the total world phone market, it's just his 60% or 70% share for phones with Microsoft's software which is laughable. ;)

Unless he was talking about stuff like Microsoft Exchange Activesync, which is licensed to many smartphone makers.

Certainly the iPhone would be less regarded without it. Google even paid for a super license which lets them rebrand it as Google Sync.

Next up: Silverlight Mobile?

[LagunaSol]

Again, with all of your Pro Apple comments, everyone else is crap comments

And this differs from your constant whining about "Bad Apple" how exactly?

And your pairing of the words "always" with "stranglehold" is historically a bad match.

Brilliant quote from a brilliant visionary.

Ballmer should shut his gaping pie hole regarding technology and go back to Proctor and Gamble to sell anti-perspirant. Oh wait...

[Rodimus Prime]

RIM's about to get creamed.

As shown below you have a massive math fail. I think you might need to go back and take basic math because clearly you can not do it.

Again like above a math fail. The iPhone looks like it is starting to reach a saturation point in market share because it had some very fast growth in marketshare and now it appears to be leveling off.

My math shows RIM grew more from year-ago quarter than Apple.

Only a matter of time before the iPhone overtakes RIM. It's only a 3% or so gap now. In only two years. One model (counting the 3G as well). RIM is a one-trick pony and it shows.

Again you show how blind you are and do not really even know what all blackberry and RIM have to offer. The blackberry is the only phone out there that can do true push as RIM currently owns all the pattens on it. There are ways to go around RIM pattens. Apple way is not true push in how it is done but to the end users you can not tell a difference. RIM way of doing it is a lot better on the battery than apple but that is where owning the pattens comes in handy.

RIM has a lot of offer and with OS 5 rolling out they have added in a lot of great things to the blackberry while still keeping true to its core.

[LagunaSol]

The iPhone looks like it is starting to reach a saturation point in market share because it had some very fast growth in marketshare and now it appears to be leveling off.

A year from now this quote will prove to be Ballmer-esque in its stupidity. Mark it.

[gnasher729]

""There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance," said Ballmer. "It's a $500 subsidized item. They may make a lot of money. But if you actually take a look at the 1.3 billion phones that get sold, I'd prefer to have our software in 60% or 70% or 80% of them, than I would to have 2% or 3%, which is what Apple might get.""

Steve Ballmer:mad:

Not saying that Apple will win this market completely, but between OS X, RIM's software, the Palm Pre software, Google's Android, and Symbian, there are at least four solutions that are far superior to Windows mobile. That's one market where Microsoft gets squeezed out for good.

[LagunaSol]

That's one market where Microsoft gets squeezed out for good.

Every time Microsoft gets squeezed out of a market, an angel gets its wings.

I can't wait to see the amazingly iPhone-like Windows Mobile 7. Too bad no one will care by the time it shows up. More evidence that Microsoft has no vision but can only follow others' lead. This time, fortunately, it will probably be too late. Thank you Google.

[tabasco70]

Their growth in the handset industry is phenomenal. Wow.
I'm interested to see how far they can go.

[aristobrat]

RIM has a lot of offer and with OS 5 rolling out they have added in a lot of great things to the blackberry while still keeping true to its core.
What great things are shipping in 5.0?

Everything I've read so far have been pretty ho-hum.

[seedster2]

RIM's about to get creamed.

My math shows RIM grew more from year-ago quarter than Apple.

That's an odd conclusion, since the chart shows that RIM gained 4.9% in share, as compared to Apple's 4.2% gain.

Only a matter of time before the iPhone overtakes RIM. It's only a 3% or so gap now. In only two years. One model (counting the 3G as well). RIM is a one-trick pony and it shows.

These type of comments just baffle me. In the typically strongest iPhone quarter (just after the release of the new model), Apple actually lost ground against RIM in % marketshare.

Watching this exchange unfold was pure comedy.

LTD's post are typically free of reality/objectivity and mostly emotionally driven unless he's posting 20 links worth of customer satisfaction links.

When Apple becomes a free agent and lands into multiple U.S. carriers, the numbers are going to be insane! I imagine the iPhone they introduce when this happens is going to be one they've been holding back on. It's going to be sweet!

Agreed. The majority of people aren't willing to switch from their reliable and/or business-paid carriers to get another device. This will help the phone proliferate and make inroads into the business sector

[Mattie Num Nums]

And this differs from your constant whining about "Bad Apple" how exactly?


Not saying Apple is bad. If you notice my only issues are with people who made superfluous claims and statements. If you need examples, just check some of your previous posts.

Every time Microsoft gets squeezed out of a market, an angel gets its wings.

Points Proven.

[Mattie Num Nums]

We modified this document to fit our needs. The big payoff for us is the ability to create our enterprise tailored apps (with their own embedded security policy). LDAP provides most of our access control policy.

http://manuals.info.apple.com/en_US/Enterprise_Deployment_Guide.pdf

Certainly, your policies have grown and include a lot more legacy problems that we have, but rolling it out to a trial department helps identify areas of concern.

For large companies though this is not a reality. BES servers provide us with everything we need for corporate integration.

[aristobrat]

The iPhone looks like it is starting to reach a saturation point in market share because it had some very fast growth in marketshare and now it appears to be leveling off.
Really? Didn't Orange (UK) just sell 30,000 of them in one day during its launch on their network last week? Apparently there is still a lot of marketshare potential if events like that are still occurring, no?

For large companies though this is not a reality. BES servers provide us with everything we need for corporate integration.
I work for a large company (Fortune 500) where iPhones/Exchange could easily replace our BlackBerrys/BES. Just depends on how much of the functionality only available via RIM (MDS, etc) your company uses. We basically just use email + PIM sync here.

[Mattie Num Nums]

Really? Didn't Orange (UK) just sell 30,000 of them in one day during its launch on their network last week? Apparently there is still a lot of marketshare potential if events like that are still occurring, no?


I work for a large company (Fortune 500) where iPhones/Exchange could easily replace our BlackBerrys/BES. Just depends on how much of the functionality only available via RIM (MDS, etc) your company uses. We basically just use email + PIM sync here.

One caveat is your exchange system needs to be on 2007+. For huge companies thats not necessarily a given, plus its just Web Services like the new Office 2008 add on, and Snow Leopard Exchange. For us we use the remote wipe features, advanced permissions, Office Communicator, and other Corp. additions which make the BB irreplaceable. We have had some iPhone users here mostly higher execs, and most now have a BB as well as an iPhone.

[Rodimus Prime]

Really? Didn't Orange (UK) just sell 30,000 of them in one day during its launch on their network last week? Apparently there is still a lot of marketshare potential if events like that are still occurring, no?


And that tells me what. Apple has massive hype on everything it does so I have noticed a huge spike for how many of its new products or things are bought on the release day and then it drops like a rock to much lower levels.

Take the release of the iPhone 3gs. It had huge sales on its release date and in the first week then just plumped to were over the 3Q Rim still grew more than them. RIM and other smart phones makers do not have apply hype for new products so out of the gate they have slower sells but unlike apple there sells stay fairly steady from the release date so in the same quarter they have more sells.
Best way to look at it is the the Hair and the Tortoise. Apple is the hair and out of the gate they are insanely fast but they do not keep it up. RIM is the tortoise and are much slower out of the gate but keep a fairly steady pace and end up winning and that is just looking at the past year between the 2 companies.

Problem with your entire argument is you try using a day one release. by the end of next month you can more than likely expect that number to drop by a lot.

[RazHyena]

RIM's about to get creamed.

Nope.

[OllyW]

And that tells me what. Apple has massive hype on everything it does so I have noticed a huge spike for how many of its new products or things are bought on the release day and then it drops like a rock to much lower levels.

The first day Orange UK sales show that a lot of people are waiting for the iPhone to be freely available on more networks. Even though the 3GS has already been available for 4 months exclusively on O2, 30,000 people went out and bought one on the first day not because of hype, but because it was available on their network of choice.

Just imagine how many they will sell when the other US networks get the iPhone.

[LagunaSol]

If you notice my only issues are with people who made superfluous claims and statements.

LOL.

Wrong.

[aristobrat]

One caveat is your exchange system needs to be on 2007+. For huge companies thats not necessarily a given.
True. I guess my point was that there is at least one "huge company" that sees the iPhone as a potential fit (to replace BlackBerry/BES). I think I read one of your prior posts as being a blanket statement that no large company would ever be able to replace BlackBerry/BES. Sorry if I misread that.

Problem with your entire argument is you try using a day one release. by the end of next month you can more than likely expect that number to drop by a lot.
My point is simple. If the iPhone market were truly saturated (per your point, which is why it's "leveling off"), then Orange wouldn't have been able to sell 30,000 iPhones in one day last week. Regardless of any hype.

[lostngone]

Maybe I have been living in a box or have no friends but around here I only know 1 person with a nokia smartphone and everyone else with smartphones have some sort of BB or an iPhone.

[Mattie Num Nums]

LOL.

Wrong.

Considering I love Apple computers and support them I have no issues with them. What I do have issues with is there changing business practices that are aimed more towards locking down there tech and putting the iphone in front of there other tech.

[pika2000]

What caught my attention is HTC. Look at how many percentage it got. HTC is doing Winmo and Android, and I have a feeling they can surpass Apple.

[*LTD*]

What caught my attention is HTC. Look at how many percentage it got. HTC is doing Winmo and Android, and I have a feeling they can surpass Apple.

If Apple is vaporized tomorrow, then maybe.

[Vulpinemac]

My math shows RIM grew more from year-ago quarter than Apple.

Percentage-wise, yes. Profit-wise? I read that Apple took the lead in profits even from Nokia, much less RIM. RIM's carriers are having to offer 2for1 sales just to move them.

Again, with all of your Pro Apple comments, everyone else is crap comments, RIM just like Microsoft will always have a stranglehold on the business sector. Thats the money market right there. iPhones thus far in our environment have been pretty much a disaster.
Based on certain 'inside' knowledge, Microsoft's stranglehold in the enterprise is slipping -- and so is RIM's. Both will hold their higher shares for a while, yet, but unless they do something significantly different from what they've done in the past, new technologies will leave them behind. And I don't just mean by Apple.

He wasn't far off with the 2% or 3% figure for Apple's share of the total world phone market, it's just his 60% or 70% share for phones with Microsoft's software which is laughable. ;)

Better look at that chart again. I don't believe that 17% is just the US market. The other companies are being hurt world wide, or they wouldn't be complaining so loudly about how Apple is 'stealing their technologies.'

[aristobrat]

If Apple is vaporized tomorrow, then maybe.
I think that if Android does take off, HTC has the possibility to give Apple a good run.

The fact that HTC has a gazillion different hardware models running on virtually every carrier worldwide gives them a bit of a leg up for not having a model that runs iPhone OS. :)

[Rodimus Prime]

Percentage-wise, yes. Profit-wise? I read that Apple took the lead in profits even from Nokia, much less RIM. RIM's carriers are having to offer 2for1 sales just to move them.



And counter that is iPhone carriers are having to give the iPhone a subsidized at a rate 60%-100% larger than the standard smart phone to move them.

On AT&T the iPhone is getting a $400 subsidization compared to the $200-250 for other phones

[dejo]

Considering I love Apple computers and support them I have no issues with them. What I do have issues with is there changing business practices that are aimed more towards locking down there tech and putting the iphone in front of there other tech.
Their. Learn how to use it.

[Stella]

Maybe I have been living in a box or have no friends but around here I only know 1 person with a nokia smartphone and everyone else with smartphones have some sort of BB or an iPhone.

You live in the states?

Its well known that Nokia perform poorly in n.america.

Ask the question "who uses a nokia smartphone" in Europe and elsewhere and you'd get a vastly different answer.

[*LTD*]

I
The fact that HTC has a gazillion different hardware models running on virtually every carrier worldwide gives them a bit of a leg up for not having a model that runs iPhone OS. :)

Some have argued that that business model is actually a disadvantage, post June 2007.

[xIGmanIx]

until apple can make major inroads into federal (civil service & DoD) and the private sector businesses, apple will probably reach a max capacity. Also, being that its limited to just AT&T also hurts its efforts. Its good to see HTC making an impact and i like what they are doing with their winmo and android hardware, it should be interesting in about a year or two since the mobile space is heating up big time.

[Bafflefish]

More evidence that Microsoft has no vision but can only follow others' lead. This time, fortunately, it will probably be too late. Thank you Google.
So when OS X gets SSD TRIM support (which Windows 7 already has), will you say that Apple followed MS's lead (for once)? :P

[LagunaSol]

What caught my attention is HTC. Look at how many percentage it got. HTC is doing Winmo and Android, and I have a feeling they can surpass Apple.

When was the last time you heard someone say "I really want that new HTC phone!" I've never heard this. HTC may have an armada of hardware, but their brand power is zero. At least in the U.S.

And while I admire Android (particularly for being the Windows Mobile killer that it will surely be), my bet is the hardware/software fragmentation issues are going to be horrific (in the long-term) for all parties involved.

So when OS X gets SSD TRIM support (which Windows 7 already has), will you say that Apple followed MS's lead (for once)? :P

Because adding support for existing hardware to your OS is innovation? :confused:

until apple can make major inroads into federal (civil service & DoD) and the private sector businesses, apple will probably reach a max capacity.

Yeah, because Apple found out with the iPod that you just can't change an industry and sell bajillions of units without government and enterprise buy-in. :rolleyes:

[Bafflefish]

The iPhone is perfectly capable of basic Exchange support, so in small enterprise environments, it's perfectly fine to migrate to it.

For a lot of mixed Exchange environments however (which many large organizations have), the iPhone is still quite a bit behind RIM in terms of Exchange support. Calendaring issues, delegate issues, the list adds up fairly quickly. For the organization I work for, iPhones are supported, but for the execs who have them, we also require that they have a Blackberry.

[DMann]

Every time Microsoft gets squeezed out of a market, an angel gets its wings.

I can't wait to see the amazingly iPhone-like Windows Mobile 7. Too bad no one will care by the time it shows up. More evidence that Microsoft has no vision but can only follow others' lead. This time, fortunately, it will probably be too late. Thank you Google.

And yet, it's fairly common knowledge that MS has been using Apple as their primary source of R&D for decades. Simon Aldou, of MS, admits (http://www.trustedreviews.com/software/news/2009/11/12/Microsoft-Admits-Mac-OS-X-Influence-in-Windows-7/p1) this himself (http://www.pcr-online.biz/features/328/Microsofts-new-vision).

Again you show how blind you are and do not really even know what all blackberry and RIM have to offer. The blackberry is the only phone out there that can do true push as RIM currently owns all the pattens on it. There are ways to go around RIM pattens. Apple way is not true push in how it is done but to the end users you can not tell a difference. RIM way of doing it is a lot better on the battery than apple but that is where owning the pattens comes in handy.

RIM has a lot of offer and with OS 5 rolling out they have added in a lot of great things to the blackberry while still keeping true to its core.

Actually, this is not true, as RIM carries absolutely no pattens on anything.

If you were by chance addressing patents, however, this would be a different story.

[Bafflefish]

Because adding support for existing hardware to your OS is innovation? :confused:
Because it's a newly-supported feature of SSDs, a product which both Apple and others offer to their customers, and a product which is beginning to now get quite a bit of momentum behind it.

SSDs tend to slow down in performance over the lifespan of the drive. TRIM helps to avoid that. It's been a feature that A LOT of people have been looking forward to, and it's finally become available. Linux supports it. Windows 7 supports it. OS X? Not so much.

And why does "innovation" have to be limited to flashy features that appeal to your eyes or senses? If I spend $400 or more on a SSD drive (or upgrade option), I'd like the comfort of knowing that it's performance isn't going to dramatically deteriorate as it ages. TRIM gives me that comfort. :)

[OllyW]

Better look at that chart again. I don't believe that 17% is just the US market. The other companies are being hurt world wide, or they wouldn't be complaining so loudly about how Apple is 'stealing their technologies.'

That chart is for the worldwide market share of smartphones.

Balmer was talking about the worldwide cell phone market.

There is a difference. ;)

[schwell]

How do you roll out iphones and be able to use them without iTunes being installed on every desktop? (Or even how would you block iTunes from getting out to the internet...)

Why block iTunes?

[kdarling]

When was the last time you heard someone say "I really want that new HTC phone!" I've never heard this.

My guess is that you only hang around Apple forums.

On other phone forums, people are constantly drooling over the latest HTC phones, be they WM or Android.

For that matter, every press site has been printing raves over the HTC HD2, whether they're normally pro-HTC or not.

[*LTD*]

My guess is that you only hang around Apple forums.

On other phone forums, people are constantly drooling over the latest HTC phones, be they WM or Android.

For that matter, every press site has been printing raves over the HTC HD2, whether they're normally pro-HTC or not.

Substitute HTC with Palm. Or Storm. Or now, Droid.

We've seen it all before.

[DMann]

TRIM gives me that comfort. :)

TRIM (http://lh5.ggpht.com/_XixADbnX2zE/SaFTizSknVI/AAAAAAAAA5c/-JXQ-ktmLsI/s800/08_quiana-grant_01.jpg) gives me great comfort, as well.

[LagunaSol]

Percentage-wise, yes. Profit-wise? I read that Apple took the lead in profits even from Nokia, much less RIM. RIM's carriers are having to offer 2for1 sales just to move them.

Word. Market share is such a ludicrous measuring stick. Microsoft just borked a million Xboxes from Xbox Live because the users were running hacked hardware. Those million MS fanboys (a popular word around here, so I'll use it) will likely run out and buy a million new Xboxes so they can game online again. Microsoft will show that number as a million new Xboxes sold and wave it in the face of their competitor, Sony. Xbox market share is up!

Rubbish.

And I'd rather sell a hundred gadgets at $500 each than a thousand at $10 each. Which is exactly what Apple is doing in both the computer and the mobile phone markets. And that's exactly the right approach.

Screw market share.

My guess is that you only hang around Apple forums.

On other phone forums, people are constantly drooling over the latest HTC phones, be they WM or Android.

"People" being "tech hounds" - just like the people here on MacRumors. How many Regular Joe consumers are talking about HTC phones or Android? No one that I've met. They just aren't.

And people are "drooling" over WM? LOL! Keep dreaming. Even the most fanatical pro-MS journalists are savaging WM 6.5 as the archaic pile of crud that it is. WM has absolutely zero interest in the consumer sector, and the "nerd" and "enterprise" sectors are starting to dump it as well.

[LagunaSol]

Balmer was talking about the worldwide cell phone market.

:rolleyes:

[MorphingDragon]

So when OS X gets SSD TRIM support (which Windows 7 already has), will you say that Apple followed MS's lead (for once)? :P

Because integrating already available hardware features is innovation of a software company?

[xIGmanIx]

what does the ipod have anything to do with the current thread or mobile smart phones?


Yeah, because Apple found out with the iPod that you just can't change an industry and sell bajillions of units without government and enterprise buy-in. :rolleyes:

LagunaSol = LTD = Fanboy :D

[Bafflefish]

Because integrating already available hardware features is innovation of a software company?
Because supporting features that haven't even been released yet = worthless?

TRIM was just finally pushed out. Linux and Windows 7 had TRIM support *before* TRIM was even available yet for users to upgrade to.

What's your definition of innovation then? Only features that Apple themselves creates/provides?

[Bafflefish]

And I'd rather sell a hundred gadgets at $500 each than a thousand at $10 each. Which is exactly what Apple is doing in both the computer and the mobile phone markets. And that's exactly the right approach.

Generally I agree with much of your post. However, "and that's exactly the right approach", is only one approach, and it's nothing more than an opinion as well.

It's the right approach if all you care about is maximizing profit (and don't get me wrong, that's certainly not a bad thing).

However, there's nothing wrong at all with maximizing market share, even if it comes at the cost of a low margin. A lot of times, maximizing market share at the expense of lower margins in the short term translates into continuous, steady profits for the long term.

Game consoles are a perfect example of this. A lot of the times, the console maker will sell the system at a low margin (or a loss) in order to maximize the number of individuals buying the system. That translates into far more people buying peripherals, games, etc., all which result in sustained profit (and with time, the costs of the console itself will come down, meaning eventually most console makers end up generating a decent profit on the system as well).

Don't discount the marketshare approach just because it's not Apple's desired business strategy (at times).

[MorphingDragon]

Because supporting features that haven't even been released yet = worthless?

TRIM was just finally pushed out. Linux and Windows 7 had TRIM support *before* TRIM was even available yet for users to upgrade to.

What's your definition of innovation then? Only features that Apple themselves creates/provides?

Innovation suggests they created something. You need to look up Innovation because it doesn't mean what you think it means. Trim was not a creation product so it is not Microsoft's Innovation. You should be praising their initiative.

innovation |ˌinəˈvā sh ən|
noun
the action or process of innovating.
• a new method, idea, product, etc. : technological innovations designed to save energy.

[Bafflefish]

Innovation suggests they created something. You need to look up Innovation because it doesn't mean what you think it means. Trim was not a creation product so it is not Microsoft's Innovation. You should be praising their initiative.

innovation |ˌinəˈvā sh ən|
noun
the action or process of innovating.
• a new method, idea, product, etc. : technological innovations designed to save energy.
Then what has Apple truly "innovated" recently? From what I've always seen, Apple has usually taken already-existing ideas, and improved upon them. It's certainly a great business plan, but then per your defined meaning for innovation (and I will admit, mine was wrong), Apple rarely "innovates" also.

[*LTD*]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/streetwise/rim-rumour-mill-churns/article1360463/

http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/research_in_motion_ripe_for_takeover/

MS possibly interested?

[*LTD*]

Then what has Apple truly "innovated" recently?

Almost everything they touch.

[bushido]

thats pretty awesome considering apple only has one phone on the market at a time while nokia who is #1 has many different phones available at the same time

[Bafflefish]

Almost everything they touch.
Name something then. That's all I'm asking.

I view Apple as being a great improver on existing technologies:

iPod - MP3 players existed long before the iPod. Apple simply improved the functionality, connectivity and portability.

iPhone - Smartphones, including touch screens, existed before the iPhone. Apple improved upon them.

iTunes - music apps, even those designed for MP3 players, existed before. Apple improved.

OS X - an improvement upon BSD, taking a Unix-based OS that a consumer could likely never get into, and opening up the stability and features to the masses.

Many of the software products Apple now offers were once developed/owned by other companies, and Apple either bought the companies outright, or purchased the software itself. They improved upon them, definitely, and now they're vastly more popular, but once again, it's improvements, not innovation.

mDP is a recent feature I can think of Apple pushing fairly well. Firewire in the late 90s (and its various incarnations since). Otherwise, I can't think of much that Apple has really done, that didn't already exist in some form prior.

[aristobrat]

My dictionary has this definition for the verb "innovate". Seems to align more closely with what Apple does? Then again, it's the Apple "Spotlight" dictionary that I used. :D

innovate |ˈinəˌvāt|
verb [ intrans. ]
make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products

You know a thread has pretty much hit bottom when definitions are being thrown around. :)

[*LTD*]

Name something then. That's all I'm asking.

I view Apple as being a great improver on existing technologies:

iPod - MP3 players existed long before the iPod. Apple simply improved the functionality, connectivity and portability.

iPhone - Smartphones, including touch screens, existed before the iPhone. Apple improved upon them.

iTunes - music apps, even those designed for MP3 players, existed before. Apple improved.

OS X - an improvement upon BSD, taking a Unix-based OS that a consumer could likely never get into, and opening up the stability and features to the masses.

Many of the software products Apple now offers were once developed/owned by other companies, and Apple either bought the companies outright, or purchased the software itself. They improved upon them, definitely, and now they're vastly more popular, but once again, it's improvements, not innovation.

mDP is a recent feature I can think of Apple pushing fairly well. Firewire in the late 90s (and its various incarnations since). Otherwise, I can't think of much that Apple has really done, that didn't already exist in some form prior.

Based on current definitions, pick virtually any product they introduced in the last decade. There's kind of a reason they're where they are now, dontcha think?

[Bafflefish]

My dictionary has this definition for the verb "innovate". Seems to align more closely with what Apple does? Then again, it's the Apple "Spotlight" dictionary that I used. :D

innovate |ˈinəˌvāt|
verb [ intrans. ]
make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products

You know a thread has pretty much hit bottom when definitions are being thrown around. :)
Pfft, well clearly the only definitive source is the Oxford English Dictionary:


innovate, v.
To bring in (something new) the first time; to introduce as new.

:P

(and I'm just kidding about it being the only definitive source)

[LagunaSol]

However, there's nothing wrong at all with maximizing market share, even if it comes at the cost of a low margin. A lot of times, maximizing market share at the expense of lower margins in the short term translates into continuous, steady profits for the long term.

There is plenty wrong with maximizing market share if you are going to destroy your brand in the process. What is Dell known for now? Cheap computers. Want a cheap computer? You buy a Dell! So when Dell introduces an expensive (read: good profit margins) computer model, everyone says "$$$$ for a Dell? Screw that!" How do you ever recover your brand from bargain-bin status? Not an easy task. I don't think that's exactly the position a company should want to be.

I believe Steve Jobs once said in an interview that you don't lower prices because you can never raise them again. And Dell is now relegated to the status of selling $399 computers to the world. Bad move.

Game consoles are a perfect example of this. A lot of the times, the console maker will sell the system at a low margin (or a loss) in order to maximize the number of individuals buying the system. That translates into far more people buying peripherals, games, etc., all which result in sustained profit (and with time, the costs of the console itself will come down, meaning eventually most console makers end up generating a decent profit on the system as well).

Game consoles are a perfect example of what not to do.

Newsflash: Microsoft is still billions in the hole with Xbox. Billions! Sure, they say theirs is a long-term strategy that will result in "sustained profit" as you say, but by the time they're digging out of their original hole they have to introduce a new console (at a loss) and start the whole bleeding process again. It's a never-ending process of losing money.

Nintendo started selling the Wii at a profit from day one. You don't think Sony or Microsoft would rather be in Nintendo's shoes right now?

When Toyota decided it wanted to unseat GM as the world's market share leader, their quality took a dive and their brand has been tarnished. Bad move.

Making the pursuit of market share your singular driving strategy is a fool's errand.

Don't discount the marketshare approach just because it's not Apple's desired business strategy (at times).

I discount the market share approach because it seems to be disastrous for most companies that attempt it.

[MorphingDragon]

Then what has Apple truly "innovated" recently? From what I've always seen, Apple has taken already-existing ideas, and improved upon them.

The sad thing is you could replace Apple with any other company and it would still be true.

Features in Windows 7 were already available in Linux in the form of KDE 4.3 and kWin.

[*LTD*]

innovate |ˈinəˌvāt|
verb [ intrans. ]
make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products : the company's failure to diversify and innovate competitively.
• [ trans. ] introduce (something new, esp. a product) : innovating new products, developing existing ones.

The problem is, "innovation" is a very broad and often misused term. I stay away from it as much as I can.

[Bafflefish]

Based on current definitions, pick virtually any product they introduced in the last decade. There's kind of a reason they're where they are now, dontcha think?
No, I think Apple is largely where it is now thanks in large part to the iPod. The iMac, etc., all helped Apple to survive (and I would consider the original iMac innovative, btw).

The iPod helped to introduce millions of more customers to Apple. These millions of customers, seeing how well made and "fun" the iPod was, started to see Apple as this "hip" company in tune with what customers wanted, etc.

From there, you started to see far more people willing to consider purchasing an Apple computer (and more often than not, an Apple laptop, which sales figures seem to confirm). This was especially true amongst the college crowd, but slowly it's opened up across the entire age spectrum of consumers.

Ultimately, all of those who ended up purchasing a Mac (whether it was a MB, a MBP, an iMac, etc) raved to their friends about it in some form or another, and as people saw how sleek and intuitive Apple's systems were (plus the aspect, that can't be understated, of wanting something that's "cool"), more peopled ended up purchasing them.

Now it's to the point where the iPod or the iPhone don't need to help drive sales of other products. Apple now has an image, and it helps all of their products to generally sell. A large part of that developed image though is in part due to the iPod.

Were there areas where the iPod innovated? Sure. But it was largely an improvement on existing products in the market. There's no ifs, ands or buts about it.

Now, Apple could release an old smelly dog with the Apple logo branded on its fur, and people would buy it up, lol.

[DMann]

The sad thing is you could replace Apple with any other company and it would still be true.

Features in Windows 7 were already available in Linux in the form of KDE 4.3 and kWin.

Not to mention. that Windows 7 actually is KDE 4:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/KDE_4.png
Talk about innovation

[NT1440]

No, I think Apple is largely where it is now thanks in large part to the iPod. The iMac, etc., all helped Apple to survive (and I would consider the original iMac innovative, btw).

The iPod helped to introduce millions of more customers to Apple. These millions of customers, seeing how well made and "fun" the iPod was, started to see Apple as this "hip" company in tune with what customers wanted, etc.

From there, you started to see far more people willing to consider purchasing an Apple computer (and more often than not, an Apple laptop, which sales figures seem to confirm). This was especially true amongst the college crowd, but slowly it's opened up across the entire age spectrum of consumers.

Ultimately, all of those who ended up purchasing a Mac (whether it was a MB, a MBP, an iMac, etc) raved to their friends about it in some form or another, and as people saw how sleek and intuitive Apple's systems were (plus the aspect, that can't be understated, of wanting something that's "cool"), more peopled ended up purchasing them.

Now it's to the point where the iPod or the iPhone don't need to help drive sales of other products. Apple now has an image, and it helps all of their products to generally sell. A large part of that developed image though is in part due to the iPod.

Were there areas where the iPod innovated? Sure. But it was largely an improvement on existing products in the market. There's no ifs, ands or buts about it.

Now, Apple could release an old smelly dog with the Apple logo branded on its fur, and people would buy it up, lol.
Which is why their products continually top satisfaction ratings right? After all, no one gets tired of trying to be cool, they can put up with a POS as long as they look hip right?

Obviously apple is making great products that people want, that are reliable. Otherwise they wouldn't top the charts in that field.

As for innovation, theres been plenty, but you seem discredit applying a concept to a new field as merely improving.

I still think the magsafe is amazingly innovative, and I'm surprised no one else has done something similar in all these years.

[LagunaSol]

No, I think Apple is largely where it is now thanks in large part to the iPod.

Of course. But the iPod was no accident.

Now, Apple could release an old smelly dog with the Apple logo branded on its fur, and people would buy it up, lol.

Microsoft sells an old smelly dog (Windows) with its logo on it and manages to corral 90% of potential buyers. Now that's marketing power!

[DMann]

Of course. But the iPod was no accident.

Microsoft sells an old smelly dog (Windows) with its logo on it and manages to corral 90% of potential buyers. Now that's marketing power!

Being that 71% of Windows users are still running XP, and are unlikely to buy into the next smelly pooch, especially since

a large percentage are using pirated copies to begin with, they'd be lucky to corral 20% of potential buyers, if that.

Google Chrome is just around the corner - market share bragging rights status might soon be headed for the coroner.

[Bafflefish]

There is plenty wrong with maximizing market share if you are going to destroy your brand in the process. What is Dell known for now? Cheap computers. Want a cheap computer? You buy a Dell! So when Dell introduces an expensive (read: good profit margins) computer model, everyone says "$$$$ for a Dell? Screw that!" How do you ever recover your brand from bargain-bin status? Not an easy task. I don't think that's exactly the position a company should want to be.
Dell still sells plenty of systems, as does HP. Look at HP's revenue per year, and tell me they're complaining. No matter what the consumer market thinks of Dell, Dell still sells millions of systems in the enterprise and government markets. That's a market Apple hasn't even been able to really crack (and good luck seeing Apple crack it to any major extent).

And in regards to lower-margin products driving marketshare and yet destroying brand image, how do you explain the likes of Toyota, Honda, and even recently Hyundai/Kia? Toyota and Honda for years sold vehicles below the cost of the American manufacturers, and yet gained not only marketshare but also very good reputations.

Now look at Hyundai: while most car manufacturers have been losing marketshare or having it remain flat, Hyundia/Kia have actually been increasing their marketshare considerably. Not only that, but they're actually beginning to shed the bad reputations they have, as more and more companies consider their cars very high-quality, and yet still very much affordable.

I'm sorry, but both market approaches can exist. Yes, going for marketshare does often mean sacrificing margins, but it doesn't *have* to mean sacrificing your image as well.

I believe Steve Jobs once said in an interview that you don't lower prices because you can never raise them again. And Dell is now relegated to the status of selling $399 computers to the world. Bad move.
Funny that Steve would say that, given that at one time the cheapest Power Mac was around $2000. Apple eventually started selling them for as low as $1500. Eventually, they once again went back to $2000, and now they're at $2500+.

Even the iMac could once be had for < $1000, and now the introductory model sells for $1200.

What's that about never being able to raise prices again? ;)



Game consoles are a perfect example of what not to do.

Newsflash: Microsoft is still billions in the hole with Xbox. Billions! Sure, they say theirs is a long-term strategy that will result in "sustained profit" as you say, but by the time they're digging out of their original hole they have to introduce a new console (at a loss) and start the whole bleeding process again. It's a never-ending process of losing money.
What? http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/halo3untitledodstgame/news.html?sid=6237794

Microsoft's game division has been turning a profit now for a couple of years. They make money on each console sold. They make quite a bit of money off of peripherals. And they have the highest attach rate in the industry. Care to revisit your "data"?

And how do you explain the Wii? How many has Nintendo sold? Something like 50 million + units. Nintendo has been making a sizable margin off of each Wii sold since the console was released.

Nintendo started selling the Wii at a profit from day one. You don't think Sony or Microsoft would rather be in Nintendo's shoes right now?
So first you say consoles *isn't* the way to go, but then you contradict that argument by pointing out that Nintendo makes money on each Wii sold, which *is* a console. Which one is it?

When Toyota decided it wanted to unseat GM as the world's market share leader, their quality took a dive and their brand has been tarnished. Bad move.
Says who? Show me an article where Toyota's reputation "took a dive". Their models have consistently still been ranked as among the most reliable by many different organizations (JD POwer, Consumer Reports, Car & Driver, etc.).

In fact, part of the whole reason for Toyota's success was that they've always had a good reputation for affordable and yet high-reliability vehicles. Has their customer satisfaction ratings taken hits at time? Sure. But so have Apple and others.

Making the pursuit of market share your singular driving strategy is a fool's errand.
Why? Microsoft's pursuit of having the largest marketshare of an OS seems to have paid off for them. Have there been problems with this? Of course. Windows has had numerous issues, Microsoft has faced numerous lawsuits and confronted other issues, but at the end of the day, people haven't seemed to mind, as the marketshare is still at over 92%.

And at the end of the day, most corporations and organizations still run Windows, and thus still end up purchasing Microsoft software. I don't think Microsoft's shareholders are sitting back, thinking "Damn, if only MS had not wanted to have so many corporations reliant on them, and instead focused on 10% of the market".

I discount the market share approach because it seems to be disastrous for most companies that attempt it.
It seems like you only "discount" it because it's not Apple's approach. Sorry, that's not how things work.

[Mattie Num Nums]

Based on certain 'inside' knowledge, Microsoft's stranglehold in the enterprise is slipping


Better get some new "inside" contacts. Were in the midst of deploying 5000 copies of Windows 7, App V, and VDI.

[Bafflefish]

Of course. But the iPod was no accident.
I fully agree, it wasn't. The iPod is/was a wonderful product, and Apple hit it rich with it.

But people shouldn't chalk up Apple's success to OS X. OS X has benefited *greatly* from what the iPod brought to Apple. Where were the huge marketshare gains in terms of hardware sold when the iPod wasn't out/had just been released, and Apple was still relying largely on hardware and OS X.

Microsoft sells an old smelly dog (Windows) with its logo on it and manages to corral 90% of potential buyers. Now that's marketing power!
Have you tried Windows 7? It's a very, very good OS. Yes, it copies aspects of OS X. But at the end of the day, I don't care. It works. It works well.

My PC is next to my iMac. When's the last time OS X crashed on me? I can't remember, it's been that long. When's the last time Windows 7 crashed on me? It hasn't since it's been installed. Both are running smoothly and are stable (and both complement each other very well).

[aegisdesign]

Nokia is the one that should be worried.

Why?

According to another analyst, Canalys, Nokia increased it's market share in smartphones...

http://www.canalys.com/pr/2009/r2009112.htm

http://www.canalys.com/pr/images/r2009112b.gif

[Bafflefish]

Which is why their products continually top satisfaction ratings right? After all, no one gets tired of trying to be cool, they can put up with a POS as long as they look hip right?
I'm not discounting their products (trust me, I love Apple products. I've been an Apple supporter since 1998). I'm also not discounting the "cool" factor. I think it helps Apple considerably. It's no different than the brief "cool" phase Motorola went through with the RAZR. The difference is Apple continues to improve and add to their existing products, and do a very good job at it. Motorola just kinda floats along (the Droid is a very well designed device though).

Obviously apple is making great products that people want, that are reliable. Otherwise they wouldn't top the charts in that field.
I fully agree. That doesn't mean though that they're the only ones.

As for innovation, theres been plenty, but you seem discredit applying a concept to a new field as merely improving.
But see, it's not a "new" field. Many of the "fields" Apple has entered, have already existed. Apple simply improves upon what's available. That doesn't mean they don't at times innovate within that field.

I'm not discounting what Apple has accomplished, or trying to discredit them. All I'm saying is, don't apply the "innovate" term to everything they do. As LTD even mentioned above, it's too broad and gets used too loosely, and that's the problem here. People credit Apple with innovating everything.

I still think the magsafe is amazingly innovative, and I'm surprised no one else has done something similar in all these years.
The magsafe is amazing. I would consider it to be a very innovative introduction. That having been said, the idea of a break-away power cable isn't new. In the early 2000s there were plenty of breakaway laptop power breaks, designed largely so that if someone tripped over the cable, the cable that plugged into the socket would "break away" from the brick, and thus prevent the laptop from being pulled down to the ground.

The problem was, almost all of the implementations were pretty crappy, and either you still saw the laptop fall to the ground, or you'd often see where the pins within the brick connectors would become bent or broken.

[dejo]

Better get some new "inside" contacts. Were in the midst of deploying 5000 copies of Windows 7, App V, and VDI.
Except that your enterprise can't speak for all enterprise.

[DMann]

Dell still sells plenty of systems, as does HP. Look at HP's revenue per year, and tell me they're complaining. No matter what the consumer market thinks of Dell, Dell still sells millions of systems in the enterprise and government markets. That's a market Apple hasn't even been able to really crack (and good luck seeing Apple crack it to any major extent).

And in regards to lower-margin products driving marketshare and yet destroying brand image, how do you explain the likes of Toyota, Honda, and even recently Hyundai/Kia? Toyota and Honda for years sold vehicles below the cost of the American manufacturers, and yet gained not only marketshare but also very good reputations.

Now look at Hyundai: while most car manufacturers have been losing marketshare or having it remain flat, Hyundia/Kia have actually been increasing their marketshare considerably. Not only that, but they're actually beginning to shed the bad reputations they have, as more and more companies consider their cars very high-quality, and yet still very much affordable.

Yet, we don't hear BMW complaining about their comparatively low market share and higher profit margin, either.

What? http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/halo3untitledodstgame/news.html?sid=6237794

Microsoft's game division has been turning a profit now for a couple of years. They make money on each console sold. They make quite a bit of money off of peripherals. And they have the highest attach rate in the industry. Care to revisit your "data"?

And how on earth will this miniscule profitability ever come remotely close to compensating for the +$25 Billion in expenditures/losses caused by the XBox?

It will never happen.

And at the end of the day, most corporations and organizations still run Windows, and thus still end up purchasing Microsoft software. I don't think Microsoft's shareholders are sitting back, thinking "Damn, if only MS had not wanted to have so many corporations reliant on them, and instead focused on 10% of the market".

It seems like you only "discount" it because it's not Apple's approach. Sorry, that's not how things work.

However, they have been sitting back saying, "Damn, our stock has basically flat-lined for past 10 years, piracy makes up a sufficient portion of our user base,

consumers believe that our products are substandard, and our CEO has overseen all of it." Again, companies such as BMW focus on 10% of the market, and

do quite well, while maintaining a reputation of high standards - things happen to work in this regard, as well.

[LagunaSol]

Dell still sells plenty of systems, as does HP.

Of course they do. And "plenty" of those plenty of systems are $399 computers that probably cost more in customer support than they bring in. Again, that's not the business I'd want to be in.

And in regards to lower-margin products driving marketshare and yet destroying brand image, how do you explain the likes of Toyota, Honda, and even recently Hyundai/Kia?

I think you overlooked my Toyota example.

Now look at Hyundai: while most car manufacturers have been losing marketshare or having it remain flat, Hyundia/Kia have actually been increasing their marketshare considerably. Not only that, but they're actually beginning to shed the bad reputations they have, as more and more companies consider their cars very high-quality, and yet still very much affordable.

Exactly. Their market share is increasing because they're making better quality products. Hyundai didn't decide they were going to make market share their priority. They decided to make product quality their priority. And a pleasant result of that approach has been rising market share.

I'm sorry, but both market approaches can exist. Yes, going for marketshare does often mean sacrificing margins, but it doesn't *have* to mean sacrificing your image as well.

But it very often does.

Funny that Steve would say that, given that at one time the cheapest Power Mac was around $2000. Apple eventually started selling them for as low as $1500. Eventually, they once again went back to $2000, and now they're at $2500+.

Even the iMac could once be had for < $1000, and now the introductory model sells for $1200.

What's that about never being able to raise prices again? ;)

I think Jobs actually said it's hard or difficult to raise them again. Apparently not so difficult that they couldn't do it. :(

I miss the days of the $1500 Power Mac.

Microsoft's game division has been turning a profit now for a couple of years. They make money on each console sold. They make quite a bit of money off of peripherals. And they have the highest attach rate in the industry. Care to revisit your "data"?

WRONG. Just because they're making money on each console sold now doesn't mean they've repaid the billions they've dumped into the effort since day one (including the hardware's horrific failure rate). Because they haven't. Not even close. High attach rate or not, Xbox will be in the red for a long time to come.

And how do you explain the Wii? How many has Nintendo sold? Something like 50 million + units. Nintendo has been making a sizable margin off of each Wii sold since the console was released.

Exactly. Nintendo took the right approach. Make a great product that people would want, price it at a profit. Sell lots of product, make lots of money, take a commanding market share. Business 101.

Sony and Microsoft did not follow Business 101 with their console strategies.

So first you say consoles *isn't* the way to go, but then you contract that argument by pointing out that Nintendo makes money on each Wii sold, which *is* a console. Which one is it?

Wrong. I'm saying selling at a big loss now and hoping you'll make up for it down the road is a mistake. Microsoft & Sony = stupid approach. Nintendo = smart approach. See above.

Says who? Show me an article where Toyota's reputation "took a dive". Their models have consistently still been ranked as among the most reliable by many different organizations (JD POwer, Consumer Reports, Car & Driver, etc.).

Wow, you must not follow automotive news. I'm not saying Toyota isn't a quality company, but the quality of their products took a marked dive when they started pushing for volume and anyone who follows car news knows it. Read any review and they'll gripe about the cheap interior quality - definitely not the Toyota of yesteryear. And their recalls have been huge. Definitely not the Toyota of yesteryear. The interior of my mother-in-law's 2004 Camry is far crappier than the quality of the 1992 Camry she had before it, and that's an observable fact.

And at the end of the day, most corporations and organizations still run Windows, and thus still end up purchasing Microsoft software. I don't think Microsoft's shareholders are sitting back, thinking "Damn, if only MS had not wanted to have so many corporations reliant on them, and instead focused on 10% of the market".

I think you've completely missed the point of my argument.

It seems like you only "discount" it because it's not Apple's approach. Sorry, that's not how things work.

Unfortunately, for many companies this is exactly how things work.

Have you tried Windows 7? It's a very, very good OS. Yes, it copies aspects of OS X. But at the end of the day, I don't care. It works. It works well.

Yes, I've been using it since RC. Better than XP? Definitely. But "very, very good?" Not really. I'd say it's "less crappy" than any version of Windows I've used before, but I certainly wouldn't give it any trophies for software design.

I guess when you specialize in mediocre products like Microsoft it's easy to keep your customers happy. They're the GM or McDonalds of the technology world. Nothing special, yet everyone buys their stuff. "Baffling" really. ;)

[Bafflefish]

Yet, we don't hear BMW complaining about their comparatively low market share and higher profit margin, either.
You're absolutely right. Just like Apple, BMW has carved out a part of the market for itself, and is doing quite well.

It shows that both business methods can work.


And how on earth will this miniscule profitability ever come remotely close to compensating for the +$25 Billion in expenditures/losses caused by the XBox?

It will never happen.
The last I heard, the total amount Microsoft had invested in Xbox/Xbox 360 design & development was somewhere around $8 billion. Where's the $25 billion coming from? I've seen it said that the divisions that produced the Xbox, Zune, Windows Live, etc., have overall averaged a $15 billion loss in the past 10 years, but that's more than just the XBOX itself.

However, they have been sitting back saying, "Damn, our stock has basically flat-lined for past 10 years, piracy makes up a sufficient portion of our user base,

consumers believe that our products are substandard, and our CEO has overseen all of it." Again, companies such as BMW focus on 10% of the market, and

do quite well, while maintaining a reputation of high standards - things happen to work in this regard, as well.
Yes, I'm sure Microsoft's shareholders have also been pissed about all the dividends Microsoft has paid out as well, with the company still having very large cash reserves.

While I agree that a lot of consumers view Microsoft products as sub-standard, they still happen to buy them in large numbers. You'd think they'd all go running off to other companies in mass droves.

And once again, you're right, focusing on 10% of the market is perfectly acceptable. All I'm saying is, it's not the *only* option for how to do business, and it's not necessarily the best.

[Mattie Num Nums]

Except that your enterprise can't speak for all enterprise.

Give me some examples of Macs taking over corp.

Exchange rules the business world. Apple has nothing to can come close. Open Directory is not going to fly in a huge corp. Macs are a niche market and people acting like its taking over the world are seriously confused, especially in the enterprise market. Prime example, almost all major Net Appliances use NFS or SMB, not AFP (we use ExtremeZIP.) Apple Servers are extremely expensive and for the price not worth what you get (Promise drives as the Apple RAID, good choice Apple, NOT.) Apple is not even remotely prepared to enter the enterprise market and its ok because they aren't geared for that market.

BTW: Most enterprises are moving towards VDI or similar options and App Virtualization. Apple doesn't even allow this under there EULA.

[MorphingDragon]

Give me some examples of Macs taking over corp.

Exchange rules the business world. Apple has nothing to can come close. Open Directory is not going to fly in a huge corp. Macs are a niche market and people acting like its taking over the world are seriously confused, especially in the enterprise market. Prime example, almost all major Net Appliances use NFS or SMB, not AFP (we use ExtremeZIP.) Apple Servers are extremely expensive and for the price not worth what you get (Promise drives as the Apple RAID, good choice Apple, NOT.) Apple is not even remotely prepared to enter the enterprise market and its ok because they aren't geared for that market.

BTW: Most enterprises are moving towards VDI or similar options and App Virtualization. Apple doesn't even allow this under there EULA.

If anything linux is taking over the Enterprise world.

[DMann]

The last I heard, the total amount Microsoft had invested in Xbox/Xbox 360 design & development was somewhere around $8 billion. Where's the $25 billion coming from? I've seen it said that the divisions that produced the Xbox, Zune, Windows Live, etc., have overall averaged a $15 billion loss in the past 10 years, but that's more than just the XBOX itself.

It was already over $25 Billion (http://seekingalpha.com/article/32642-when-will-microsoft-own-up-to-the-xbox-360-bomb) as of Q2 2007:

"Making money, e.g., the creation of long-term shareholder value, has got to be the ultimate driver of Microsoft's gaming (and H&E) strategy, right? Well, after five years and over $21 billion invested all they've got to show for it is $5.4 billion of cumulative operating losses, and Xbox 360 doesn't appear to be the silver bullet to turn things around. I think it is also interesting to note that Microsoft's actual disclosure shows only Revenues and Operating Losses; I backed into and show EXPENSES below for explanatory purposes"

Yes, I'm sure Microsoft's shareholders have also been pissed about all the dividends Microsoft has paid out as well, with the company still having very large cash reserves.

At the current Quarterly dividend at .13 per share? No thanks, I'll stay with AAPL.

While I agree that a lot of consumers view Microsoft products as sub-standard, they still happen to buy them in large numbers. You'd think they'd all go running off to other companies in mass droves.

And once again, you're right, focusing on 10% of the market is perfectly acceptable. All I'm saying is, it's not the *only* option for how to do business, and it's not necessarily the best.

The majority of consumers use MS products as a result of having had one placed in front of them at work or school, much less so as a matter of choice. We can attribute MS's

larger market share to their monopolistic, predatory practices, and sleazy OEM deals. Fortunately, many have come to realize that there is a choice, and people have been responding.

Although bargain-bin OEM sales will naturally outsell higher quality products, this is not the market that Apple seems to be catering to.

[dejo]

Give me some examples of Macs taking over corp.
I thought we were talking about smartphones here. And neither I nor Vulpinemac said anything about it just being Apple doing the takeover.

[MorphingDragon]

It was already over $25 Billion (http://seekingalpha.com/article/32642-when-will-microsoft-own-up-to-the-xbox-360-bomb) as of Q2 2007:

"Making money, e.g., the creation of long-term shareholder value, has got to be the ultimate driver of Microsoft's gaming (and H&E) strategy, right? Well, after five years and over $21 billion invested all they've got to show for it is $5.4 billion of cumulative operating losses, and Xbox 360 doesn't appear to be the silver bullet to turn things around. I think it is also interesting to note that Microsoft's actual disclosure shows only Revenues and Operating Losses; I backed into and show EXPENSES below for explanatory purposes"



At the current Quarterly dividend at .13 per share? No thanks, I'll stay with AAPL.



The majority of consumers use MS products as a result of having had one placed in front of them at work or school, much less so as a matter of choice. We can attribute MS's

larger market share to their monopolistic, predatory practices, and sleazy OEM deals. Fortunately, many have come to realize that there is a choice, and people have been responding.

Although bargain-bin OEM sales will naturally outsell higher quality products, this is not the market that Apple seems to be catering to.

I'll see if I can find the shop again, I went into a computer store and there was actually a bargain bin for things like netbooks and laptops!

[DMann]

I'll see if I can find the shop again, I went into a computer store and there was actually a bargain bin for things like netbooks and laptops!

http://www.blogcdn.com/news.bigdownload.com/media/2008/12/bargainbin.jpg
Back to school Laptop Hunters

[MorphingDragon]

http://www.blogcdn.com/news.bigdownload.com/media/2008/12/bargainbin.jpg
Back to school Laptop Hunters

No as in there were laptops and netbooks in the bargain bin!

[DMann]

No as in there were laptops and netbooks in the bargain bin!

I totally believe you!

[MorphingDragon]

I totally believe you!

I do hope that wasn't sarcasm. Next time I'm in the North Shore I'll take a picture!

[DMann]

I do hope that wasn't sarcasm. Next time I'm in the North Shore I'll take a picture!

No sarcasm, I really do believe it.

[plinden]

These type of comments just baffle me. In the typically strongest iPhone quarter (just after the release of the new model), Apple actually lost ground against RIM in % marketshare.

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but Arstechnica has a diagram showing market share for several quarters ... here: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/11/apple-grabs-17-of-smartphone-market-in-latest-quarter.ars

The only reason RIM gained year on year over Apple is because the iPhone had a huge surge of pent-up demand in Q3 2008 over Q2 2008. The Arstechnica graph clearly shows the gap narrowing.

[*LTD*]

Not to mention. that Windows 7 actually is KDE 4:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/KDE_4.png
Talk about innovation

Wow. That's remarkably similar.

[Bafflefish]

Of course they do. And "plenty" of those plenty of systems are $399 computers that probably cost more in customer support than they bring in. Again, that's not the business I'd want to be in.
Yes, and Dell also sells plenty of XPS and Alienware systems, and plenty of <$100 but >$400 systems, and plenty of >$1000 but <$1000 systems.

Exactly. Their market share is increasing because they're making better quality products. Hyundai didn't decide they were going to make market share their priority. They decided to make product quality their priority. And a pleasant result of that approach has been rising market share.
Their market share isn't increasing *just* because they're making higher quality products. It's a combination of making higher quality products, and still selling cars at very affordable levels. And they still are making marketshare gain a priority. Check out this link:

http://www.bnet.com/2403-13241_23-309290.html

Notice this quote from their head of sales:

"Everybody is trying to figure out how to gain market share. At the end of the last year we had 3 percent market share, so we believe there’s 97 percent out there that we can go after."

I think Jobs actually said it's hard or difficult to raise them again. Apparently not so difficult that they couldn't do it. :(
So first it's that it never happens, now it's that it's hard/difficult. Where's this quote? :P

(And don't take that as me calling you out. He probably did say something along those lines. Then again, it's not the first time Steve put his foot in his mouth).

I miss the days of the $1500 Power Mac.
So do I :(


WRONG. Just because they're making money on each console sold now doesn't mean they've repaid the billions they've dumped into the effort since day one (including the hardware's horrific failure rate). Because they haven't. Not even close. High attach rate or not, Xbox will be in the red for a long time to come.
As mentioned in an earlier post, if I recall correctly (and I may be very much incorrect on this), they've spent something like $8 billion total in investment in the "XBox project" (XBOX and XBOX360). If they continue to make a profit each quarter, it'll eventually pay itself back.

I don't think that's much different from quite a few companies. I'm sure some of Intel's developments have taken quite a bit of time to pay back.

Exactly. Nintendo took the right approach. Make a great product that people would want, price it at a profit. Sell lots of product, make lots of money, take a commanding market share. Business 101.

Sony and Microsoft did not follow Business 101 with their console strategies.
Well, Nintendo took that approach more because they couldn't keep up in the game of constantly trying to develop and release the most advanced gaming console. Remember how long it took for the N64 and Gamecube to appear. Nintendo's track record for developing top-of-the-line console hardware had become fairly bad with the last few products. It had nothing to do with thinking it was the best approach to go. It was simply the best approach for them. And it has paid off handsomely (although lately Wii sales are starting to drop quite a bit, and Nintendo's profits are considerably down).

Look at all of the free services Google provides to educational institutions. Most of those free services aren't bringing in much if any money, but it's certainly not hurting Google, as they know that a) it attaches people to their other product offerings, and b) ultimately they're likely to remain users of Google's services even once removed from the educational environment, thus increasing Google's market share in the long term.

Wrong. I'm saying selling at a big loss now and hoping you'll make up for it down the road is a mistake. Microsoft & Sony = stupid approach. Nintendo = smart approach. See above.
I'll agree that short-term big losses are risky. Short-term small losses though? Not so much. Look at the PS2, and how that turned out for Sony.

I don't think it's necessarily the best approach, but it's one approach, and sometimes you can hit it big.

Then again, you can say the same for when a company prices a product at a high cost to get a high margin, without regard for growing marketshare. That's a risk too. If the product(s) fail, that company is essentially going to have to either lower prices enough that people will buy it (thus eroding that margin) or ultimately face going out of business if they refuse to.

Wow, you must not follow automotive news. I'm not saying Toyota isn't a quality company, but the quality of their products took a marked dive when they started pushing for volume and anyone who follows car news knows it. Read any review and they'll gripe about the cheap interior quality - definitely not the Toyota of yesteryear. And their recalls have been huge. Definitely not the Toyota of yesteryear. The interior of my mother-in-law's 2004 Camry is far crappier than the quality of the 1992 Camry she had before it, and that's an observable fact.
Yes, Toyota is certainly doing bad in the reliability department: http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/honda-and-toyota-top-reliability-survey-but-ford-closes-gap/

If anything, the complaint I've heard about Toyota's recent cars is that they're fairly plain insane (compared to the stylized interiors a lot of other companies are putting out). However, plain interior =/= low quality interior.

And I'm sorry to hear about your mother-in-law's 2004 Camry, but does that mean all of Toyota's products are? I'm sure there are people who've received defective Apple products, and complained about how Apple's QA "isn't up to the quality of years past" (or what about the issue years ago with the iPod batteries, or the first generation iPhone screen problems). Does their experience mean Apple is putting out crappy products all around? I don't think so.

I think you've completely missed the point of my argument.
No, I think you're just looking at it from a narrow view point. Apple's way =/= the only way, no matter what Steve Jobs preaches :)

Yes, I've been using it since RC. Better than XP? Definitely. But "very, very good?" Not really. I'd say it's "less crappy" than any version of Windows I've used before, but I certainly wouldn't give it any trophies for software design.
How is it not a very good OS? It's stable, far more secure than XP and Vista. Device compatibility hasn't been much of an issue so far. It can run on systems that even Vista had troubles with at times.

Sure, there are a number of areas where it's clear that they took the idea from OS X (such as the taskbar redesign and Aero), but if anything people should see that as a good thing for both camps: it means Apple did a tremendous job with their GUI design (so much so, MS wanted to copy it), and at the same time, it improves the computing experience for millions of more people.

I'd honestly love to hear why exactly you feel like Windows is still bad.

I guess when you specialize in mediocre products like Microsoft it's easy to keep your customers happy. They're the GM or McDonalds of the technology world. Nothing special, yet everyone buys their stuff. "Baffling" really. ;)
I don't think "everyone" buys GM's products. Remember, GM's marketshare has been declining by a considerable margin for several years now.

And not "everything" Microsoft produces is "mediocre". Just because you don't like Microsoft or its management doesn't mean you have to discredit everything MS puts out.

I don't like Steve Jobs at all, but I don't let that sour my viewpoint of Apple.

[Speedy2]

It's about 2-3% isn't it.

So apart from the laughable wishful thinking about WinMo he's right, isn't he?


They are at 2.5% right now. The smartphone market is growing like crazy, while the total cellphone market isn't. It doesn't take much to predict a steep rise of the iPhone market share way beyond what S.B. saw as absolute maximum possible. I'm pretty sure tho, it will never go beyond 10%, similar to the Mac market share.

[Speedy2]

It's been a feature that A LOT of people have been looking forward to, and it's finally become available. Linux supports it. Windows 7 supports it. OS X? Not so much.

Supporting a feature is not innovation. That's just... well... supporting a feature. No one had to have a new idea to support TRIM.

You are right tho, that OS X is behind in that respect, but I'm not sure how much effect the TRIM command really has for real life applications. Do you have any numbers on that?

[Bafflefish]

It was already over $25 Billion (http://seekingalpha.com/article/32642-when-will-microsoft-own-up-to-the-xbox-360-bomb) as of Q2 2007:

"Making money, e.g., the creation of long-term shareholder value, has got to be the ultimate driver of Microsoft's gaming (and H&E) strategy, right? Well, after five years and over $21 billion invested all they've got to show for it is $5.4 billion of cumulative operating losses, and Xbox 360 doesn't appear to be the silver bullet to turn things around. I think it is also interesting to note that Microsoft's actual disclosure shows only Revenues and Operating Losses; I backed into and show EXPENSES below for explanatory purposes"
You do realize that he references the Home & Entertainment Division (aka, the Xbox, Xbox 360, the Zune, game development studios for both console and PC, PC hardware and mobile phone software) and doesn't actually break out what the XBOX 360 itself cost? Is the XBOX/XBOX 360 a sizable chunk of it? Sure. But he treats it like the entire R&D has gone towards the XBOX/XBOX 360, and that's not the case.

There's also the fact that you're treating it as if they've lost $25+ billion. As of that writing, he clearly shows that the loss has actually only been $5.4 billion and, currently, the H&E division is now making a profit. As long as the profit keeps up (and there's no guarantee of course that it will), eventually they'll actually be in the black for the entire project/division.

At the current Quarterly dividend at .13 per share? No thanks, I'll stay with AAPL.
Ok, and if AAPL's stock were to start to rapidly decline, and you didn't sell, what would the result be?

I never said that MS's divident was very much, but they are paying one, and I doubt those with substantial MS stock holdings are going to simply scoff at receiving money.

Tell me, how is it not having to worry about money at all? :rolleyes:

The majority of consumers use MS products as a result of having had one placed in front of them at work or school, much less so as a matter of choice. We can attribute MS's larger market share to their monopolistic, predatory practices, and sleazy OEM deals. Fortunately, many have come to realize that there is a choice, and people have been responding.
Well, you're right in that most users continue to use MS products because that's what they've been used to. And yes, a lot of companies do require their employees to use PCs. Why? Because Apple dropped the ball in that regard.

Remember, the computing market was very much open for the taking in the early 80s. Apple could very much have become the dominant company that Microsoft is today. Instead, IBM offered cheaper machines, and other manufacturers were able to follow suit since they could advertise complete compatibility. It was cheaper for corporations to buy PC or PC clones than to buy Apple systems, and because adoption so quickly began to favor PCs, this is what companies wrote software for.

Thus, you now have the current period, where most people are still more familiar with Windows, as bad as it may be. The other factor is that for the most part, Windows is perfectly adequate for what most users need.

I'd be willing to state that the majority of Windows users (and even Mac users) typically do very simple, basic computing tasks. As such, both OS' are more than suitable.

And MS' "sleazy days" are pretty much behind them. While I'm sure they wish they could get back to some of those times (and the DoJ likely wouldn't stop them, as they have larger issues to deal with), the EU would loving nothing more than to hit MS up for some more fines. Look at the extent to which MS is now going to satisfy their regulators.

Although bargain-bin OEM sales will naturally outsell higher quality products, this is not the market that Apple seems to be catering to.
You're right, and that's perfectly fine. Apple is making a lot of money catering to the market that they do.

Other companies are making a lot of money catering to the markets they focus on. Why do people here have to complain so much about how others make profit?

[Bafflefish]

Supporting a feature is not innovation. That's just... well... supporting a feature. No one had to have a new idea to support TRIM.

You are right tho, that OS X is behind in that respect, but I'm not sure how much effect the TRIM command really has for real life applications. Do you have any numbers on that?
Here's a good quote from Anandtech: Again, I won’t go into great detail here but TRIM addresses a major part of the performance degradation over time issue that plague all SSDs. A TRIM enabled drive running an OS with TRIM support will stay closer to its peak performance over time.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3667&cp=7

Basically, no matter which OS is being used, SSD performance will decline with time (granted, you'll typically see a degradation in performance over time with all disk drives, but it's far more apparent with SSDs).

Here's another good read on the issue:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9132668/Analysis_SSD_performance_is_a_slowdown_inevitable_?taxonomyId=19&pageNumber=2

[*LTD*]

They are at 2.5% right now. The smartphone market is growing like crazy, while the total cellphone market isn't. It doesn't take much to predict a steep rise of the iPhone market share way beyond what S.B. saw as absolute maximum possible. I'm pretty sure tho, it will never go beyond 10%, similar to the Mac market share.

This is getting iCal'd. ;)

[kernkraft]

Now, Apple could release an old smelly dog with the Apple logo branded on its fur, and people would buy it up, lol.

I just did. It is called MacBook Pro. It stinks and it likes to play, mostly with beach balls or with my nerves.

By the way, I completely agree with your argument.

[twoodcc]

i suspect that trend will continue. every time apple updates the iphone, the numbers rise big time. and over they'll continue to dominate, while others try to copy

[DMann]

There's also the fact that you're treating it as if they've lost $25+ billion. As of that writing, he clearly shows that the loss has actually only been $5.4 billion and, currently, the H&E division is now making a profit. As long as the profit keeps up (and there's no guarantee of course that it will), eventually they'll actually be in the black for the entire project/division.

No, the loss has been cumulative. $25+ billion is nothing to sneeze at - it is a loss, nonetheless, regardless of how it is framed, and will not be recouped any time soon,

considering the lean profits which have only recently trickled in, in sporadic fashion.

Ok, and if AAPL's stock were to start to rapidly decline, and you didn't sell, what would the result be?

I never said that MS's divident was very much, but they are paying one, and I doubt those with substantial MS stock holdings are going to simply scoff at receiving money.

Tell me, how is it not having to worry about money at all? :rolleyes:

The profit I've made selling 30 shares of AAPL would make MSFT's meager dividends on 1000 shares seem insignificant. Besides, if MSFT were doing well, I would opt to reinvest the dividends rather than

to be forced to pay taxes on the quarterly hand-outs. To each, his own.

Well, you're right in that most users continue to use MS products because that's what they've been used to. And yes, a lot of companies do require their employees to use PCs. Why? Because Apple dropped the ball in that regard.

Remember, the computing market was very much open for the taking in the early 80s. Apple could very much have become the dominant company that Microsoft is today. Instead, IBM offered cheaper machines, and other manufacturers were able to follow suit since they could advertise complete compatibility. It was cheaper for corporations to buy PC or PC clones than to buy Apple systems, and because adoption so quickly began to favor PCs, this is what companies wrote software for.

Thus, you now have the current period, where most people are still more familiar with Windows, as bad as it may be. The other factor is that for the most part, Windows is perfectly adequate for what most users need.

I'd be willing to state that the majority of Windows users (and even Mac users) typically do very simple, basic computing tasks. As such, both OS' are more than suitable.

And MS' "sleazy days" are pretty much behind them. While I'm sure they wish they could get back to some of those times (and the DoJ likely wouldn't stop them, as they have larger issues to deal with), the EU would loving nothing more than to hit MS up for some more fines. Look at the extent to which MS is now going to satisfy their regulators.

Sleazy actions have a way of following the culprit, especially for those actions of significant sleazery. It comes as no surprise that 78% of the world’s Web servers are not run by a Microsoft product.

Considering how the open source Firefox browser rose from zero market share five years ago, to over 24% in October of this year, while the pitiful Internet Explorer, which remains the default on

every single Windows computer (until the ballot box goes into effect), is now estimated at 64%, things finally seem to be heading toward an equilibrium now.

You're right, and that's perfectly fine. Apple is making a lot of money catering to the market that they do.

Other companies are making a lot of money catering to the markets they focus on. Why do people here have to complain so much about how others make profit?

True, as Apple never needed to engage in monopolistic, predatory practices and sleazy OEM deals in the first place, in order to achieve their success.

[LagunaSol]

As mentioned in an earlier post, if I recall correctly (and I may be very much incorrect on this), they've spent something like $8 billion total in investment in the "XBox project" (XBOX and XBOX360). If they continue to make a profit each quarter, it'll eventually pay itself back.

"Eventually." Uh huh. Sure. And how long do you think it will take them to break even, i.e. make up for that $8 billion investment? Do you think they can sell the Xbox 360 for 20 years? Do you think that, perhaps, after 4 years on the market that the Xbox 360 might not have a lot of sales ahead of it? Particularly when Sony now gives the consumer Blu-Ray, built-in WiFi, Bluetooth, and free online gaming for the same price? Do you think that, perhaps, Microsoft will have to release an Xbox 540/720/1080/whatever within the next few years to stay competitive?

Of course they will. And the losses will begin anew. The Xbox is never going to "eventually pay itself back" (no matter how many iterations of Marathon, er, I mean Halo they release) and anyone with a basic grasp of arithmetic should see that. (Steve Ballmer apparently does not have a basic grasp of arithmetic).

Xbox is just another expensive attempt by Microsoft at "cool." Because, apparently, spreadsheet software just isn't hip with the younger crowd. Microsoft just wants to be loved, and they're willing to spend whatever it takes to get there.

[DMann]

"Eventually." Uh huh. Sure. And how long do you think it will take them to break even, i.e. make up for that $8 billion investment? Do you think they can sell the Xbox 360 for 20 years? Do you think that, perhaps, after 4 years on the market that the Xbox 360 might not have a lot of sales ahead of it? Particularly when Sony now gives the consumer Blu-Ray, built-in WiFi, Bluetooth, and free online gaming for the same price? Do you think that, perhaps, Microsoft will have to release an Xbox 540/720/1080/whatever within the next few years to stay competitive?

Of course they will. And the losses will begin anew. The Xbox is never going to "eventually pay itself back" (no matter how many iterations of Marathon, er, I mean Halo they release) and anyone with a basic grasp of arithmetic should see that. (Steve Ballmer apparently does not have a basic grasp of arithmetic).

Xbox is just another expensive attempt by Microsoft at "cool." Because, apparently, spreadsheet software just isn't hip with the younger crowd. Microsoft just wants to be loved, and they're willing to spend whatever it takes to get there.

http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/laptophunters.jpg
Business as usual

http://boycottnovell.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ballmer-money.png
"This can be yours!"

http://thenextweb.com/wp-content/uploads/skitch/microsoft_decline.psd_@_100__(old,_RGB_8)-20091006-102336.jpg
"Just wait until Win7Mobile comes out!"

[LagunaSol]

However, plain interior =/= low quality interior.

And I'm sorry to hear about your mother-in-law's 2004 Camry, but does that mean all of Toyota's products are? I'm sure there are people who've received defective Apple products, and complained about how Apple's QA "isn't up to the quality of years past" (or what about the issue years ago with the iPod batteries, or the first generation iPhone screen problems).

The interior isn't "plain," the interior is of low quality materials.

It isn't defective, it's cheap. It's the same as every other Camry of her model year. It's a cheap product. The plastics are cheap, the doors feel flimsy, the fit and finish are just not up to Toyota (of yesteryear) standards. I've always been a fan of Toyota (though I'm a Honda buyer generally), but there is no doubt that they've cheapened their product over recent years.

Sure, Apple has defective products just like any other company. But you can't put your eyes or your hands on a MacBook Pro, an iMac, a Mac Pro, an iPod, or an iPhone and honestly call it cheap. And there is no comparison, build-wise, between a PowerBook of 10 years ago and a MacBook Pro today. Apple continues to improve the build quality of its products, and invests a lot of development money to do so (i.e. unibody construction process).

How is it not a very good OS? It's stable, far more secure than XP and Vista. Device compatibility hasn't been much of an issue so far. It can run on systems that even Vista had troubles with at times.

My Apple II+ (which still runs) is also stable. Does that make it a very good OS?

Windows has (and always has had) a certain amateurish feel to it that can be hard to explain yet is readily apparent. It's like the bits and pieces were not cut from the same whole but were stitched together from various scraps. Some icons are nicely done, others look like they were cribbed from XP (which they probably were). Some are three-dimensional, others are not. Jaggies continue to abound. Frankly it has a decidedly Linux feel to it, where there was no cohesive design philosophy. And the elements that directly ape OS X are just embarrassing in their obviousness. Seriously, you can't make a recycle bin icon any other way than to recreate the OS X icon and slap a recycle symbol on it? Geez, where is the creativity? It can't be that difficult. Windows Vista/7 tries (poorly) to mimic the colored glass look of OS X (released 8 years ago) at a time when Apple is moving away from it because it's old news. And "Aero" instead of "Aqua?" Sheesh.

These are just cosmetic elements, of course. I have plenty of frustrations with the intuitiveness (or lack thereof) of the Windows OS as well (and I've been a Windows user since 1992).

Sure, there are a number of areas where it's clear that they took the idea from OS X (such as the taskbar redesign and Aero), but if anything people should see that as a good thing for both camps: it means Apple did a tremendous job with their GUI design (so much so, MS wanted to copy it), and at the same time, it improves the computing experience for millions of more people.

Ah, I see. Microsoft copies Apple's work for the benefit of mankind. I get it now. I can see why some argue for Bill Gates' sainthood. Hey, Apple should be flattered, right? :rolleyes:

And not "everything" Microsoft produces is "mediocre". Just because you don't like Microsoft or its management doesn't mean you have to discredit everything MS puts out.

I like their mice (sorta) and I like Outlook.

I don't like Steve Jobs at all, but I don't let that sour my viewpoint of Apple.

My viewpoint of Microsoft has been soured by using their crap for 17 years and watching their weasel-ish business practices. And sure, observing their sweat-soaked CEO run around on stage screaming incoherently like a rabid ape doesn't help my opinion of them much either...

[LagunaSol]

http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/laptophunters.jpg
When you're ready to compromise, call us...

[DMann]

When you're ready to compromise, call us...
:D

Wow. That's remarkably similar.

Blatantly so.

[Couchie]

My math shows RIM grew more from year-ago quarter than Apple.
Better run your numbers again. While RIM may have gained more overall market share than Apple, Apple experienced a 49% increase in growth while RIM increased 47%.

A few more things:

1. Apple did this with only 2 models on a single carrier in many countries.

2. Number of years these companies have been making smartphones:
Nokia: 13 years
Blackberry: 7 years
Apple: 2 years

3. Apple is now the MOST profitable cellphone - cellphone, not smartphone - maker in the USA.

There is a time to knock Apple and there is a time to give them their accolades when they are due. this instance would be the latter.

[cycomiko]

when is it time to congratulate apple for the many years of screwing us to make that extra profit? 17% market share but the biggest profit... awsome


<should brought shares years ago - at least then i could win back the additional profit they make off me buying stuff>

[zacman]

What caught my attention is HTC. Look at how many percentage it got. HTC is doing Winmo and Android, and I have a feeling they can surpass Apple.

The US market did save Apple. In other parts of the world HTC already has surpassed Apple, for example the HTC Hero outsold the 3GS on a 3:1 basis in Germany. Also the HD2 is selling really well in Europe though it's only released in some countries yet.

[*LTD*]

http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/laptophunters.jpg
Business as usual

http://boycottnovell.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ballmer-money.png
"This can be yours!"

http://thenextweb.com/wp-content/uploads/skitch/microsoft_decline.psd_@_100__(old,_RGB_8)-20091006-102336.jpg
"Just wait until Win7Mobile comes out!"

Well done. May I add to that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR8SAFRBmcU

Who would YOU buy tech from? The guy who gives a damn, or the guy who is STILL making excuses for the very same problems today?

[*LTD*]

When you're ready to compromise, call us...

That looks soooo lowbrow, LOL. Does MS actually view its demographic that way?

[nickane]

My heart goes out to the zealots who assume these numbers are particularly positive for Apple and talk about RIM's demise. Maybe once the iPhone is available on more carriers worldwide, they may topple RIM, but ultimately Q3 should be their best quarter, and RIM pulled away 0.7%. Everywhere I look, more and more people are turning to Apple, not just for their mp3 players, but for phones and laptops. Nonetheless, acting like these figures are indicative of some sort of marketshare avalanche is ridiculous. The top 3 pulled ahead in roughly equal measure, but none more so than RIM. Companies seldom issue iphones cos they're rubbish for emails and that's the main reason they've been handing out blackberries for all this time. Ballmer was partly right inasmuch as the iPhone is as much of a niche product as the iMac, as its a consumer product, impeccably well-executed, with a professional/semi-professional pricetag. The iPhone may be smart, but its by no means professional. Were it not for the slickness of its browser, having the most desirable mp3 player built in and the diversity of its app store allowing it to double as a next-gen console, the iPhone would barely qualify as a smartphone at all, since its PIM and messaging functions are limited by the multitouch keyboard. The growth of the smartphone market is obviously down to apple finding consumer applications for the smartphone that make them desirable to people who's companies aren't buying them for them, but to pretend that that growth is outstripping that of the key players within the corporate sector is completely delusional.

How such uninspiring stats have sparked off huge debates about windows vs apple with all the usual inane car analogies brought along for the ride completely eludes me.

[kdarling]

The US market did save Apple. In other parts of the world HTC already has surpassed Apple, for example the HTC Hero outsold the 3GS on a 3:1 basis in Germany. Also the HD2 is selling really well in Europe though it's only released in some countries yet.

The HD2 is hot. Would love to see it in the USA. HTC is a factor that Apple could not have foreseen back when they tied their own hands with exclusive deals.

Every million that HTC or RIM or others sell to Verizon customers, is another million sales that Apple won't get right away with a Verizon iPhone.

Jobs made that excuse about the FCC in order to let people see the iPhone six months before launch, so that customers had warning not to renew their contracts with a subsidized phone before iPhone sales started.

In order to get the same initial sales response on Verizon, there would have to be a similar preparation time. I foresee publicity leaks early next year.

[LagunaSol]

The HD2 is hot. Would love to see it in the USA.

"Hot???" You seem to be one of the last humans on the planet remotely interested in that crusty OS called Windows Mobile.

And while MS fanboy faux enthusiasm in online forums may be "hot" for WinMo, sales of the HD2 will probably not raise the mercury much.

[LagunaSol]

That looks soooo lowbrow, LOL. Does MS actually view its demographic that way?

I suspect MS views its demographic in much less flattering terms. At least the characters in the commercial are people.

The boy (that is a boy, right? Hard to tell with the Farrah Fawcett-style do...) looks more than a little embarrassed by the whole thing.

"I can't believe we're humiliating ourselves like this on national TV for a crappy Windows laptop..."

You'll get used to it, kid. Feeling exploited by Microsoft is just part of the human experience. Wait until you get an office job and have to work with SharePoint all day. :(

[kdarling]

"Hot???" You seem to be one of the last humans on the planet remotely interested in that crusty OS called Windows Mobile.

Silly wabbit. :) The HD2 can also come with Android.

Rumors from sites like Gizmodo (http://gizmodo.com/5390002/is-this-verizons-android-20-version-of-the-htc-hd2) say that Verizon could get an Android HD2 by Christmas.

[aegisdesign]

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but Arstechnica has a diagram showing market share for several quarters ... here: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/11/apple-grabs-17-of-smartphone-market-in-latest-quarter.ars

The only reason RIM gained year on year over Apple is because the iPhone had a huge surge of pent-up demand in Q3 2008 over Q2 2008. The Arstechnica graph clearly shows the gap narrowing.

The problem with the graph is that they're using Gartner's figures which show 4.7m iPhones shipped. That is complete bollocks.

Apple shipped 6.9m iPhones in Q3 2008

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/10/21results.html

Funnily enough it's the same figure Canalys used in their estimates which I linked to earlier so I think at this point, believing Gartner would be questionable.

[MorphingDragon]

Wow. That's remarkably similar.

Just use it yourself and find out...

Too bad they didn't rip off the multiple desktop idea huh.

[samab]

The problem with the graph is that they're using Gartner's figures which show 4.7m iPhones shipped. That is complete bollocks.

Apple shipped 6.9m iPhones in Q3 2008

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/10/21results.html

Funnily enough it's the same figure Canalys used in their estimates which I linked to earlier so I think at this point, believing Gartner would be questionable.

Gartner took out 2 million iphones because those are channel inventory --- so it's left with 4.7 million iphones sell through.

Gartner also took out 250K iphones in the last quarter because channel investory got increased by that amount (Apple announced 7.367 million iphones shipped and Gartner used 7.04 million iphones sell through).

[DMann]

Well done. May I add to that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR8SAFRBmcU

Who would YOU buy tech from? The guy who gives a damn, or the guy who is STILL making excuses for the very same problems today?

These side by side interviews illuminate, in depth, the extreme contrast of the mindsets between the two. Listening to Ballmer speak is surreal:

"...where it would have been....had we not danced with IBM for so long ....split energy, split work, split IQ...really cost our end customer real innovation (a true prophet)

.... just you watch Windows 95, Windows erh, ...and people will recognize, clear leadership...."

Sarah Palin seems to be more coherent and in touch with reality than this bonafide buffoon - quite revealing, overall.

[samab]

These side by side interviews illuminate, in depth, the extreme contrast of the mindsets between the two. Listening to Ballmer speak is surreal:

"...where it would have been....had we not danced with IBM for so long ....split energy, split work, split IQ...really cost our end customer real innovation (a true prophet)

.... just you watch Windows 95, Windows erh, ...and people will recognize, clear leadership...."

Sarah Palin seems to be more coherent and in touch with reality than this bonafide buffoon - quite revealing, overall.

But it was true though --- Microsoft spent a lot of money and energy on OS/2 with IBM. Microsoft may not be much of an innovator, but it was held back by the even more slow moving IBM.

And Windows 95 became the most successful OS launch at the time --- being an apple fanboi doesn't mean that you should detach yourself from reality.

[DMann]

But it was true though --- Microsoft spent a lot of money and energy on OS/2 with IBM. Microsoft may not be much of an innovator, but it was held back by the even more slow moving IBM.

And Windows 95 became the most successful OS launch at the time --- being an apple fanboi doesn't mean that you should detach yourself from reality.

Since MS was essentially developing both Windows and OS/2 simultaneously, all the while using gimmicks, ripping off code, and feigning allegiance to OS/2,

MS killed OS/2, and spent a lot of money and energy killing it through:

1) Royalty reductions. which had the overall effect of IBM reducing, eliminating or dropping OS/2 in the market.

2) MS demanding that IBM eliminate, drop, reduce and stop shipping OS/2.

3) MS deployment of financial incentives ($48 Million) that "would have the effect of killing OS/2 in the market".

MS ensured that Windows was always more attractive (easier to acquire, easier to use, and cheaper) than OS/2.

After the death of OS/2, Windows became the only game in town. Aside from OS/2 being superior to Windows,

PC manufacturers who wanted to license OS/2 were directly threatened by Microsoft. Compaq was one of these,

and IBM was informed of Microsoft's intimidation tactics - Microsoft was hardly the victim here. Held back by IBM?

Simply not the case.


Besides, MS would have been royally *********, regardless of how long they stayed with IBM, had they not eventually hired Dave Cutler's

entire VMS team from DEC, who, with the help of his coders, convinced Microsoft to abandon the DOS/Windows mess and start over again,

since everything from the ground up was wrong - thus creating VMS+1, aka WNT. IBM was hardly a factor, nor a hindrance, in all of this,

other than getting royally screwed. Reality actually does exist outside of Ballmer's fantasy lenses, after all.

[aegisdesign]

Gartner took out 2 million iphones because those are channel inventory --- so it's left with 4.7 million iphones sell through.

Gartner also took out 250K iphones in the last quarter because channel investory got increased by that amount (Apple announced 7.367 million iphones shipped and Gartner used 7.04 million iphones sell through).

That would explain it although it does go to show that these analyst derived figures are open to wide interpretation as Gartner, IDC and Canalys all come up with different figures.

If we went by 'shipped units' the iPhone has had a largely flat year from Q3 08 to this - 6.9m last year in Q3, 7.36m this year. Hardly dramatic. Meanwhile everyone is claiming the sky is falling in on Noka when they actually shipped almost a million more smartphones in Q3 than the previous year - 16.41m units from 15.48m - ie. in unit terms they grew more than Apple. They only lost market share because RIM and Fujitsu had a stellar quarter, not Apple.

Apple on the other hand charges more for it's phones than the other guys so made a stonking fortune off it's modest market share. Good for them - bad for us.

[samab]

That would explain it although it does go to show that these analyst derived figures are open to wide interpretation as Gartner, IDC and Canalys all come up with different figures.

It's more to do with readers reading the fine print of these analysts models and understand their limitations.

Mac shipments are always hyped up with the "retail" fine print --- but vast majority of PC's are bought by corporations (and that's excluded from the "retail" model).

ChangeWave surveys showing iphone popularity have the fine print saying that they are only surveying ChangeWave members (uber-geeks), not representative of the normal population.

Gene Munster's analyst reports have a million fine prints saying his iphone numbers depend on a million things to happen and those items haven't even rumored to be closed to be true (like mini iphone nano). I may as well say that in 5 years I am going to marry a supermodel --- but these things have to happen first: (1) quit my day job and move back to my parents' basement, (2) start a internet start-up, (3) get venture capital financing for my internet start-up, (4) IPO my internet start-up and become a paper billionaire and finally (5) marry a supermodel.

[Vulpinemac]

Better get some new "inside" contacts. Were in the midst of deploying 5000 copies of Windows 7, App V, and VDI.

And yet, one of the largest corporations in the world is abandoning MS Office and is opening the choice of desktop hardware and OS to the individual user rather than relying on Microsoft for everything. After all, with nearly every application browser based, it doesn't matter any more what OS you're running. This also means that where full-featured Windows was needed for compatibility, any OS, even OS X and Linux, as long as they can attach to the network, can be used for any function, whether it be telephone support, systems administration or simple word processing.

This isn't to say Windows will be totally eliminated, but rather, that Windows will simply be 'just another OS' in the corporate environment.