Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Sets New High with 53.3% of U.S. Smartphone Market, Android Holds Strong in Europe
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Unsubsidized markets hurt Apple especially when those markets are more price-conscious in a down-turn economy. The Apple app-store ecosystem has a much stronger "halo effect" effect on the iPad than it does on the iPhone. When folks buy an iPhone they are looking for social networking apps which exist on Android and games (which still suck on Android). However, if you don't need good games on your phone then iPhone has very little ecosystem advantage over Android (probably not enough to overcome the price difference). Suddenly the iPhone becomes more about its interoperability with Mac, Apple TV, and iPad which then assumes those other things are playing "halo effect" to the iPhone which is not as strong as the reverse situation because the Mac and iPad cost more. Nevertheless, Apple's market share (even with a premium price) should improve in Europe as the European economies improve and the price sensitivity drops.
If Apple could release a powerful low-cost iPhone n Europe then they might be able to fend off Android a bit better in those markets even in economic down-turns.
There's a semi update. It's not all out WP8, but 7.8 does bring a bunch of the new features present there to all the 7.5 phones. At first glance, you probably wouldn't be able to see a difference between the two.
Even with a good economy the iPhone costs almost 150% of the minimum wage. So I don't see it take off. The sweet spot used to be 200€ when there was almost only nokia and the the flagship reached the 200€ mark it would sell like hot cakes. Nowadays with the bad economy I think that the 100€ androids are selling very well.
Yeah but it won't support the new apps.
Powerful and low-cost is impossible.
Apple and low-cost is big no no.
If at all Apple decides to do this, they should tie up with RyanAir on ideas.
The thing is, even older iPhones have crazy retail prices over here. A 8GB iPhone 4 costs 449, and you can get a Galaxy S3 for that much. A Galaxy Nexus is easily found at 299, less than the price of an iPad Mini (WiFi, 16GB) or an iPod Touch (New, 32GB).
If you refuse to accept the numbers, simply look at Apple's sales and profits. Year-to-year, when looking at a quarter, they are increasing.
It is a rolling 12 week period but for 2012 it has 9 weeks of iPhone5 sales compared to 6 weeks of iPhone 4S sales in 2011. An increased sales share doesn't really have to mean anything changed. A 2 or 3 year graph of the data would be more useful.
Apple was on the brink once so... if they can hire a Steve Jobs they should be good.
Good point. I'd think people are more likely to replace $150 phones more often than $600 phones.
I don't know why WP isn't doing well. Perhaps it has to do with them being late to the market, but I highly doubt it's because of not trusting MS.
It's laughable for one company to declare victory over the other when the other one is far more profitable in that market. Google has a LOOONG way to catch up to Apple when it comes to which company is "winning". In Schmidt's mind, Symbian is victorious since it has more marketshare than both Android and iOS.
They are not even playing the same game but Apple's game seems to be much more beneficial. Google hasn't figured out how to monetize mobile and the comparatively little money they do make from it most of it comes from Apple users.
Google's stock has been stuck in the mud for the past couple of years because the more people move away from browsing on the web to doing on mobile devices, the less money they make. Advertisers don't pay as much for mobile ads, mobile users don't tolerate ads on mobile as much as they do on desktop, and publishers don't have as much space to offer Google's ad on mobile devices as they do on desktop.
The Post PC world and explosion of mobile device use hasn't just been bad for PC makers, its bad for Google as well.
Well do you actually own one? If not then that's step one of the answer to your question.
hmm. if thats true, then get you get these stats to say anything other than that the iphone has 53% of the test bed's market share?
----------
really? what percentage of the mobile profit share is that size? because at 3.5 and 4", apple already owns 77% of the profit share of mobile...which would lead me to believe there really isnt much of a market for supersized phones.
Interesting point. I am not sure what Apple's deal is overseas with carriers or with any other carrier BUT - I do know (roughly) what their deal is with ATT when it comes to upgrades.
I preface this by saying this might not hold true for certain contracts on ATT - but applies to most.
ATT is legally not allowed to upgrade any iPhone customer to a new phone (subsidized) for a minimum of 18 months. Now - ATT can offer a reduced price on a new iPhone before then - but nothing fully subsidized.
However - as we know - there have been times where people's upgrade dates have been moved up with the release of a new iPhone. My best guess is because this is an agreement between Apple and ATT and Apple is the one who approves it.
So what's my proof point? I own both iPhones and now a Skyrocket. On both the store level (management) and Corporate - the account I have my Skyrocket on originally had an iPhone. Because I was upgrading to an Android phone, ATT could not let me upgrade (legally) until at least 18 months. However - they said if I already had an Android phone, and because I'm a long time customer/paid bills on time/etc - they could have offered me a fully subsidized phone as early as 6 months if I had really "fought" for it. Definitely after 12 months without much of an issue.
For Apple - it's a great deal because it really locks customers into their ecosystem unless the user wants to dip deeper into their saving to get out. But to stay with Apple - it's easier and at least twice, you've been able to update at full subsidy before you were "technically" allowed to.
Now - with the plethora of manufacturers and phones (and price points) - it's also easy to see why people can/do switch their phones more often on the Android platform as well. I wouldn't say it's "encouraged" - but it appears to be easier.
With the profit margin on Android phones being higher for the carriers (ATT) - and someone can correct me if I'm wrong - it matters less since ATT doesn't have a different rate plan for subsidized phone or not. In fact - it's possible that by selling more Android phones to the same customer - they might even be making more if they retain that customer for a long period of time (vs selling them one iPhone every 18-24 months).
But I'm not a statistician