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 Again Trails Market in Smartphone Growth, but Closes on Nokia in Overall Mobile Phones
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Are you r referring to Chav?. It means council house and violent!.. I.e. a scumbag.... And boy do they like their cheap iPhone 4's...
That's Chaps... Are you really British?
That's because you work at Samsung HQ...
No one said anything about malfeasance. It's just marketing. Nothing wrong with it, just be aware of the spin.
I said "chavs", not "chaps" - As indicated by my use of the letter "v" and not the letter "p".
No one said anything about malfeasance. It's just marketing. Nothing wrong with it, just be aware of the spin.
You missed the original quote: "...There will soon be only one 'phone' market and in that market Apple's share is and always has been rising steadily and is now up to 10%.
These reports have been able to suppress this story the last few years by continually moving more and more phones into the 'smartphone' category to make said category grow faster than Apple to make Apple look bad. " - proline
I interpreted that quote as an opinion that someone wants Apple to intentionally look worse by suppression of the "true story". Which is wrongdoing, or malfeasance.
I read what he wrote. I guess I interpret it differently. You seem to be adding in some words to make it seem worse than it was. No one said anything about the "true story". And you're the one that brought up "wrongdoing" and "malfeasance".
Marketing is creating a story that benefits your company or clients. There is nothing wrong with that.
Not technically right, but the gist is correct. Apple reports units shipped. But they also report units in the channel. The difference in channel inventory reveals the number of units sold to the end-user. Samsung does not report any of these numbers. Those are all estimates of shipments. Analysts get those wrong all the time.
For example, it was estimated that Samsung shipped 2 million Galaxy tablets a couple of years ago. That changed market share numbers drastically and the headlines all proclaimed doom of iPad. Documents revealed in the current Apple vs Samsung trial show actual shipments were much less than estimated/reported. Those market share numbers that so many "reporters" headlined were pure horse manure.
You say that, however, it has been Apple that has set that notion into peoples heads with it constant ruthless attempts to sue the competition out of existence no matter what or the cost.
If you ask me, the notion EVERYBODY has to lose is what swims around Tim Cooks mind everyday.
I wouldn't consider you a reliable source for what swims around Tim Cooks mind every day. If they felt everyone else had to lose, they wouldn't leave the low end open to others.
All I see here are excuses, excuses and more excuse for Apple. I do believe that Apple will gain ground this year once a larger iPhone is released but we are heading into a flagship price war with Chinese Android OEMs that will invade the US market with highly speced cheap devices. Not only is this bad news for Apple but also for Samsung, HTC, Motorola, Sony, Verizon, At&t and Sprint. Why spend $200 to $300 on contract when you can buy off contact for the same price? The true benefactors will be Google and consumers. Apple will not be willing to enter into a price war. Just look at the rumor of them trying to increase the price of the iPhone by $100.
I also believe iPhone6 will be very well received, and help give Apple a boost in market share, however with rumblings of the carriers' desire to gradually get rid of subsidies, in the long term I see clouds on the horizon for Apple's iPhone growth.
There's little doubt the flagship iPhone is a premium product sold at a premium price, and on contract, that is not so much of a disadvantage but when, in the absence of subsidies, consumers have to shell out $650-$850 up front for the latest model (and significantly more in some countries in the developing world, where subsidies even now already are almost non-existent), that may become an issue for Apple on their home turf.
With compelling features and technology, Apple needs to persuade the carriers that keeping subsidies is in the best interests of both themselves and Apple.
The alternative and best option imho, from a consumer's point of view, is something along the lines of the T-Mob model, where upfront cost would be low, while the service plan could be completely separate from the device cost, and payments for the latter portion of the monthly bill would cease, once the device is paid for.
Excuse me? Google + Motorola suing Microsoft for four billion dollars? Samsung just now being convicted in the EU so they cannot sue anyone about standard essential patents for the next five years? Could it be that you have a quite one-sided view of things?
And I don't think anyone has found a 130 page notebook at Apple, listing how they would copy Samsung? That was the other way round.
----------
That's exactly what the "smartphone market" was in 2007 when the iPhone started: The +$450 phone market. Now it's the +$80 phone market.
In the "all phones" market, where the definition hasn't shifted over the years, Apple's share has been growing year after year. Steve Jobs' declared goal when the iPhone was introduced was to get one percent of the overall phone market. It's close to ten percent now.
I can see that went over your head. I was quoting Steve Jobs when he was talking about Microsoft in a keynote. Apple really doesn't care what everyone else is doing *EXCEPT* when they completely rip off what Apple is doing. Do you see Apple suing Microsoft? NO. Why? Because Microsoft didn't steal the hell out of iOS like Google did. Sure their OS isn't the best, but it's far from crap. There are some things that it does that I wish iOS could do. They did something different and are slowly getting some market share. The way iOS works seems obvious todaybut it's only obvious because it works so well. It's as if people think that's the way it should have always worked. But it didn'tnot by a longshotbefore iOS came around. We take it for granted today, but the first time I held an iPhone on June 29, 2007 it was like a magical little slab of aluminum and glass. All other phones seemed like ancient artifacts by comparison. And Eric Schmidt was sitting on Apple's board, funneling inside information back to the mothership. Changing their design from a BlackBerry clone to an iPhone clone. That fact is well documented. Samsung even cloned things down to the look of the chargers, cables, and even stole App Store icons to put in graphics in the walls of their stores. If Apple's designs weren't patentable, then they shouldn't have been granted a patent. But that's how it works. Deal with it. Samsung is a lying, cheating, scumbag company. Anyone who values great design should hate Samsung and how they take the hard work of fine craftsmen and bastardize it for their own profits. On the other hand we have Google, which is a creepy company that reads your personal information and is slowly trying to take over everything on the internet. They have quite questionable morals. These are my personal opinions about these companies. I do like Microsoft, particularly their entertainment/Xbox division. I prefer Excel over Numbers. I like Sony, especially their camera division. If I bought a PC laptop, it would probably be a Sony. I also like Canon cameras and printers, as well as Epson printers. Audio Technica makes really great microphones. Wacom makes great drawing tablets. Dropbox has the best cloud storage service. WD and Hitachi make great hard drives. My point is there are lots of other great companies out there that make great products that aren't currently ripping off Apple. Even Samsung makes great displays. I just don't see why they have to rip off Apple to be successful. Aren't TVs and refrigerators enough?
In the context of most reports being debated, they mean the same thing.
You might be confused by thinking that "sold" only means to end users.
Yes, Apple reports units sold. Most of which are millions of units sold to retailers and carriers to fill their inventory. Only about 20% of iPhones are sold through Apple stores as direct end user sales.
Sometimes... especially during new model debuts... all of those retailer phones end up sold through to end users in the same quarter, but not always. The total amount sitting in inventory around the world rises all the time, due to more retailers coming online:
In fact, as of the end of the first quarter of 2014, there were over 15 million iPhones in inventories around the world, that Apple has reported as sold (to retailers).
Correct.
Incorrect, but not your fault. It's an oft repeated mistake.
Samsung reported worldwide shipments (like Apple, this means sales to retailers).
The documents in the trial only listed US sales, and only of accused units... which was a fraction of world sales. Samsung sold and still sells most of their units outside of the US, by a large ratio.
Haha, I see the Apple defense force in effect, sorry, but when they attempt to sue people over the shape and colour of a product based on some drawings, they are definitely attempting suing the competition out of existence no matter what, it's the only reason it keeps attacking it's main competitor, Samsung. Not one sided at all, Apple just sees it as business.
Because it's pretty fresh for people on here to claim others 'copying' Apple when Apple 'copies' itself. Like it's slide to unlock.
It is people on this site that are short sighted, you only ever see bad in everyone else bar Apple, never the balanced argument, but look around and you see cracks in Apple's cases but they often get overlooked by posters on here, like, again the FACT that prior art dictates slide to unlock featured BEFORE the iPhone and Apple LOST cases against HTC due to this outside America. But people on here refuse to accept that.
----------
Yes they would, because that's Apple's business model, high end only. Maximum mark ups and maximum profit.
Anyway.......
Apple doesn't seem to have moved much in market share, perhaps it has reached it's saturation point with it's price range target audience. And it has very stiff competition from lots of manufacturers, not just Samsung. IF they launch a bigger iPhone it will be interesting to see how that impacts it's share.
Because it's pretty fresh for people on here to claim others 'copying' Apple when Apple 'copies' itself. Like it's slide to unlock.
It is people on this site that are short sighted, you only ever see bad in everyone else bar Apple, never the balanced argument, but look around and you see cracks in Apple's cases but they often get overlooked by posters on here, like, again the FACT that prior art dictates slide to unlock featured BEFORE the iPhone and Apple LOST cases against HTC due to this outside America. But people on here refuse to accept that.
----------
Yes they would, because that's Apple's business model, high end only. Maximum mark ups and maximum profit.
Anyway.......
Apple doesn't seem to have moved much in market share, perhaps it has reached it's saturation point with it's price range target audience. And it has very stiff competition from lots of manufacturers, not just Samsung. IF they launch a bigger iPhone it will be interesting to see how that impacts it's share.
That's true... Apple's "share" of the smartphone market has been shrinking over the years... chiefly because the smartphone market itself has been growing over the years. That's not really a shock though... since the smartphone market is made up of 30 or 40 separate companies.
Apple's sales have increased over the years... even though their "share" in decreasing. Funny how percentages work...
I'd argue that a company's sales are far more important than the market share percentage they happen to have at any particular point.
Apple makes money on every iPhone they sell... and they sell more phones each year.
Other companies may be growing in sales... but they're losing money. How will that be sustainable?
Can't have it both ways though. Leaving the low end alone allows others to survive, and you just said they weren't interested in doing that.
Smartphone marketshare percentages are deceptive, as the size of the market is rapidly changing. If you want a better idea of how Apple's doing, look at raw the numbers, or percentage share of the mobile market. If you look at either of those metrics, they are still rising. The impact of a larger iPhone will be interesting to see though.
Depends on what you define as the Galaxy series. In any given year, Samsung has at least 10-15 different "Galaxy" labelled phones being sold, with only 1 or 2 being premium phones and the rest being low-midrange phones sold for almost nothing.
Oh wait, did I say 10 to 15? Here are the "Galaxy" devices still available for sale today. About 205 different models, only 70 of which are shown on that link.
In summation, no. Their premium devices (currently the Note and Galaxy S series) still sell less units than iPhones do. About 50% or more of units sold are of their low-end models. Otherwise they'd be making double or triple the amount of profit Apple does and that certainly isn't the case.
Last edited: