Because these markets are flooded with cheap plastic junk! Gee, thought it would have been obvious!!
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 Makes Gains in U.S. Smartphone Market Share as Launch of iPhone 6 Approaches
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Because these markets are flooded with cheap plastic junk! Gee, thought it would have been obvious!!
If someone is gaining market-share based solely on marketing, it's not Samsung, trust me
Attachments
This thread has more entertainment than going to the theatre. I like my Apple kit but don't have an iPhone and I'm probably never going to have one. The reason for that is one of cost.
Let me explain, I have a SIM only contract as they are better value for money, or at least they are in the UK. That means, rather than getting a free phone on a two year contract, I have to source my own and pay for the phone in full up front.
If I wait around a year after launch of most Android flagship phones I can buy one at a decent discount. Not so with Apple, who still want top dollar right to the very end, even for old outdated tech.
There's no way I'm prepared to pay top dollar for old tech when I can get much newer tech in a top end Android phone.
All this "mine's better than yours" rhetoric is truly pathetic. How old are some of you guys? I'm guessing infants, am I right?
I don't think it mattes whether you buy a Windows phone, Android or iPhone, they all do a decent job. Does my Galaxy do any less of a job simply because it's housed in a plastic case, or turn the argument around, would it do a better job if it was aluminium or carbon fibre? No it wouldn't.
My daughter used to have a Blackberry, now she has an iPhone. When I asked her which was best she replied, it's a phone, it does the things I want, who cares? That for me just about sums it up.
Why people cannot respect what other people choose to buy is beyond me.
Let me explain, I have a SIM only contract as they are better value for money, or at least they are in the UK. That means, rather than getting a free phone on a two year contract, I have to source my own and pay for the phone in full up front.
If I wait around a year after launch of most Android flagship phones I can buy one at a decent discount. Not so with Apple, who still want top dollar right to the very end, even for old outdated tech.
There's no way I'm prepared to pay top dollar for old tech when I can get much newer tech in a top end Android phone.
All this "mine's better than yours" rhetoric is truly pathetic. How old are some of you guys? I'm guessing infants, am I right?
I don't think it mattes whether you buy a Windows phone, Android or iPhone, they all do a decent job. Does my Galaxy do any less of a job simply because it's housed in a plastic case, or turn the argument around, would it do a better job if it was aluminium or carbon fibre? No it wouldn't.
My daughter used to have a Blackberry, now she has an iPhone. When I asked her which was best she replied, it's a phone, it does the things I want, who cares? That for me just about sums it up.
Why people cannot respect what other people choose to buy is beyond me.
I guess your main problem with car analogies turns out to be an inability to follow the conversation. Nobody has said that Apple is the undisputed Lexus of smartphones. They've said that Apple will be, just as they are in the PC market. As for opinion vs. fact, you need to do a little research and try to follow the conversation a bit. The high end of the Android market is collapsing right now- you can read about it in Samsung's quarterly reports. The fact that it won't be recovering is also fact in the same sense as "the sun will rise tomorrow" is a fact. No doubt you would dispute that statement as well, pointing out that the laws of physics could be misunderstood, God could intervene, etc. Back in reality, there are plenty of facts that are known about the future. The laws of economics clearly dictate that Android's high-end market will stagnate.
Umm... no. It will affect every smartphone manufacturer alike. A cheap/midpriced "good enough" Android is just as valid a replacement for an iPhone as it is for a high-end Android.
Not that I think that there will be any stagnation at all. Maybe a price drop in the high end, but that's it.
+1
----------
If someone is gaining market-share based solely on marketing, it's not Samsung, trust me
$12 billion here, $12 billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.
Chart of the Day: Samsung's galactic marketing budget: http://fortune.com/2012/11/29/chart-of-the-day-samsungs-galactic-marketing-budget/
Above link is from November 2012, but I hear Samsung is cutting back a bit on their marketing budget.
Still, they buried all other brand-name Android hardware makers. Even ones with better products.
Well that has to do with marketing. HTC and LG absolutely have better phones than Apple and Samsung at this point in time, but Apple and Samsung spend millions and billions on marketing.
I think Apple is going to see a boost of several percentage points in US market share when the IPhone 6 goes on sale. I predict it will break sales records of previous iPhones. People have been chomping at the bit for a bigger Iphone.
Last edited by a moderator:
If someone is gaining market-share based solely on marketing, it's not Samsung, trust me
That's mobile OS marketshare. Not device maker.
It's sad because rational people will not fall into the pitfall of buying phones yearly, especially when they're not being improved enough to warrant a purchase. America is one of the only few countries where Apple is the #1 choice where as other countries would choose cheaper and better alternatives.
+1. Poor HTC.
HTC came out with beautiful phones, and they didn't sell.
HTC amazingly got a full utility patent cross license with Apple, and it didn't help them a bit. (OTOH, Apple is apparently going to use HTC's unique metal back antenna design. Now the cross license makes sense.)
As for ads, they got Robert Downey Jr on their side, for goodness' sake, and STILL blew their chance with strange commercials nobody noticed.
I think Dediu stretched things in that article.. throwing out numbers while admitting to imagining up meanings for them, and ignoring obvious disconnects like number of countries, breadth of products, etc.
Being curious, I used California court documents and yearly AdAge reports to see what the phone ad spending was like just here in the US.
Looks like Apple outspent Samsung for years, and Samsung had to catch up.
The key is both how much you spend and how you spend it. Samsung's ad agencies did a memorable job with their 2013 "The next big thing is here" series.
They were so good, that Apple's own longtime ad agency wrote that ill-advised letter to Apple saying that Apple's public image was in a crisis. In return, Apple started talking about getting anther ad agency, and increased their own in-house advertising staff to over 1,000 (!) people. What's the budget for that?
Good points. Just blowing money on ads and marketing deals doesn't mean your product will be a success. And I'm sure the "efficiency" of marketing money is measured by some kind of metric, say (sales delta) / (money spent) or something.
Of course, the Apple internal marketing team might be a result of "doubling down on secrecy." Easier to keep things secret when you directly control the salaries of all photographers, copy writers, and graphic designers in the team. And when they're using your communication infrastructure, etc. for work-related things.
I can follow a conversation fairly well. Newagemac and I were discussing none of the things you brought into the conversation to change the narrative. Nor did either one of say or imply Apple was the Lexus of smartphones. Where did you get that from?
As for your theory about Android? I'm not getting drawn down that rabbit hole. It was never apart of any discussion that I was participating in and wont' be. Someone else can debate the merits of your opinion on that matter.
I note all the talk of zilllions of pounds, dollars or whatever currency you can name spent by a number of phone manufacturers on advertising.
Point is, who watches ads any more?
Such a lot of TV is time shifted these days, or at least it is in the UK, so folk simply press the ad jumper on their PVR's remote control and they're back to the main event. Ad men sob and cry in the UK and many parts of Europe over PVR's as they claim no one watches the ads any more, which is true. Plus the BBC don't even have ads in any of their scheduling.
No ads TV is a thing of real beauty.
Point is, who watches ads any more?
Such a lot of TV is time shifted these days, or at least it is in the UK, so folk simply press the ad jumper on their PVR's remote control and they're back to the main event. Ad men sob and cry in the UK and many parts of Europe over PVR's as they claim no one watches the ads any more, which is true. Plus the BBC don't even have ads in any of their scheduling.
No ads TV is a thing of real beauty.
Last edited:
It's not "adds". It's "ads". Short for ADvertisements.
And true, a lot of people skip over ads. Except during Super Bowl
And true, a lot of people skip over ads. Except during Super Bowl