There are ways Apple can protect themselves from this. Whether they use them or not is unknown. But just because China fabricates the parts and assembles them, does not mean the can change the on chip circuits. They are ways to inspect to make sure this has not happened.
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 May Briefly Drop to World's Third Largest Smartphone Maker For First Time Since 2011
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There are ways Apple can protect themselves from this. Whether they use them or not is unknown. But just because China fabricates the parts and assembles them, does not mean the can change the on chip circuits. They are ways to inspect to make sure this has not happened.
Looks Huawei is the new Samsung, and Samsung and LG phone divisions will be the new HTC, competing only on price. Say hello to razor thin margins and no differentiation, this is what a price war looks like. Reminds me of the PC marketplace.
Hardware infatuation last only until the user starts using the phone, software interaction and ergonomics is what mostly matter on a daily basis, that is what keeps the user coming back for more. Only when Huawei can differentiate on software, which doesn't seem plausible, can it succeed to be a sustainable business plan. Their will be another Huawei waiting at its heels to differentiate on price.
Too many people bring up build quality but fail to mention that for the most part, software is what drives the sales of iPhones.
Hardware infatuation last only until the user starts using the phone, software interaction and ergonomics is what mostly matter on a daily basis, that is what keeps the user coming back for more. Only when Huawei can differentiate on software, which doesn't seem plausible, can it succeed to be a sustainable business plan. Their will be another Huawei waiting at its heels to differentiate on price.
Last edited:
Apple's only advantage is that iOS generates a lot more revenue for developers. That is still outweighing the fact that there a more Android devices. But if they fix the fragmentation / security problem one day Apple might have a problem.
I think marketshare is important in the longterm view.
I think marketshare is important in the longterm view.
How many people are going to jump from a $60 android device to an $850 android device? Market share is important but if your market consists primarily of $60 phone purchasers to which the manufacturers don't make any profit and people aren't purchasing apps for those $60 phones you have no incentives for developers.....
This is the issue, I don't see them coming up with anything new - it will be like a repeat of Apple in the 90's if they aren't careful. Their stance of just ignoring certain groups of users simply because they don't fit in with the current trend might impress the shareholders, but long-term this will bite them. I really, really like the Apple ecosystem, but they don't have the hardware to back it up any longer. It's a shame to what these changes happening and the lack of interest from Apple execs - keynote speeches are now just cringe worthy rather than the delight they used to be.
You are raising two issues not one --- Developers do make less than iOS developers because the Android community does not spend as much on Apps as the iOS user base does. When you like free and open source software you get used to free software.
That problem is compounded by the fact that is is HARDER to develop these apps (even though they make less money doing so) because of the fragmentation and lack of standardization makes development to reach all of these different phones a headache.
If you solve the fragmentation issue -- then you have to enforce standardization that will reduce the variety of phones --- i.e. reduce the number of manufacturers. That will drop the cost of developing Android apps but then you are still stuck with the user base that will pay less for them.
That dynamic hinders the benefits of developing for the Android platform.
That's a fair comment, I would suggest very few would / could move from a $60 phone to a $850 phone, but it is not hard to imagine a lot of $850 iPhone users being able to move to a $250 - 400 Android phone and that is exactly what is happening in India, China etc, hence Apple's sales in China down a 14% over the first two quarters.
Of course when you're operating system is given to you for free and your chip designs are licensed you can afford that great out of the box technology.
Now about r and d. What is the r and d expenditures of these companies dealing with mobile products and mobile ecosystem only. Samsung, Huawei, Apple, google, Facebook ? I have no interest in finding out as my purchase decision does not include investigations into rcand d, but you made a bold (and hyperbolic) statement, so back it up with facts.
That sales are down could mean either people are not buying and/or waiting or shifting platforms. Either way apple last quarter financials indicate a healthy appetite for iPhones, just not in India or China.
[doublepost=1502465335][/doublepost]
Thank you for proving my point about comparing apple iPhone r and d to Volkswagen r and d. Apples to apples comparison, pun intended.
Apple wait for other to innovate and marketing the idea. If Apple see the innovation has ability to profit, they will enter the market. Apple never need spend much money on R&D... They just wait other do it.
They ALL care about marketshare. Stop with the "they don't care about marketshare" BS.
[doublepost=1502471196][/doublepost]
And if you notice, it's most the same people saying that all the time. It's like they have nothing ELSE to focus on except how much Apple makes as if it's going to change their life somehow.Ask & you shall receive!
[doublepost=1502472474][/doublepost]
Google made this phone? Pretty sure it's not Google considering the article.Is it me, or is that phone basically identical looking to an iPhone? It's obscene. Google stealing Apple's IP is essentially bad for the US economy - they've commoditised Apple tech to a degree that competition is nigh-on impossible longer term against the low-cost knock-offs from China. So Apple needs to be forever innovating in a space that it should be enjoying greater success, just so others can copy it. Where does Apple receive financial recognition for its design risks in the Asia Market?
[doublepost=1502472639][/doublepost]
Except, they actually sell phones here. They CAN take off.
[doublepost=1502472897][/doublepost]
Because it doesn't fit the narrative. A car company and consumer electronics compaies aren't an Apple to Apple as he likes to believe. It's more like a monkey and Apples.
Profits? That thing that all business exist to create? Might be important. You think Apple makes cool stuff because they like us?PROFITS!!! I don't want to hear anything else! PROOOOOOOFITS!!!
[fingers in ears]
PROFITS! PROFITS! PROFITS!
[nearly hyperventilates]
-someone in this thread most likely
Yeah, I didn't understand why the OP wanted to compare apple against any company that does tech like development either.
A discussion about profits in a thread related to an article about profits? Makes sense. A discussion about profits to usurp the topic of market share in an article about market share? Narrative shifting, threadjacking, deflection. You choose. Either is an apt description. Perfect example is right below my comment you quoted.
Comparing Apple to Huawei is beyond comical in itself. Their products are simply inferior, of course the "more affordable" product will sell better. Doesn't mean its the better product.
India and China are the growing markets. If losing out there, it will be a big blow.
[doublepost=1502482554][/doublepost]
You've never touched a huawei phone I believe. Screen is better, speed is on par with the iPhone 7 plus, camera is better. Lots of people prefer android above iOS. My company is giving its employees an iPhone for work but lots of people can't get used to the iPhone.
The growth is coming from somewhere is my point, based on last quarters financials. As far as the future, I have no crystal ball.
Once again, do a service. In any such articles specify revenues and profits, not just unit sales.
As I expected, Apple couldn't win the China market.
[doublepost=1502500249][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1502500364][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1502500249][/doublepost]
How are they "overcharging?" If you bought it, you obviously agreed with the price.
[doublepost=1502500364][/doublepost]
These people were notorious for stealing (I mean literally stealing physical copies of) software that runs on Cisco's routers and distributing in their own. Cisco won at least one lawsuit over it, but of course they were the losers in the end.
No, it's not.
Market share is the means, but profit is the ends for any company out there. What's the point of selling a ton of phones if you are earning just pennies on each one? Just ask LG. Their average profit per phone in one year was just 1.4 cents.
Any discussion on market share in a vacuum without also taking into account profit is ultimately disingenuous, since the two cannot exist in a vacuum. Just ask any OEM out there. Would they rather have more market share or more profits?
Outside of your misapplication of disingenuous, you miss the point entirely. Believe it or not, there is such a thing called addressing the topic at hand. To simply ignore the topic being discussed and force one of your own is just plain rude. Which is exactly what you did in that post below my first post in this thread. You turned a post about the positive aspects of competition creating a better smartphone market for consumers into another "but Apple makes all the profit" meme as if Apple's profit had anything to do with the subject of that post. It was about something being good for consumers and you flipped it into totally unrelated proselytizing about Apple's profit. Didn't address the subject matter of the post, just pushed the gas pedal through the firewall screaming profit at the top of your lungs. Don't believe me, go back see for yourself.
It is entirely possible to discuss market share (or any topic for that matter) based on it's merits as a topic alone.
I dunno, I find it hard to imagine that Samsung sees their phones as a loss leader for their dishwashers... It's unusual for a company to sacrifice one division's performance to benefit another. Even when there was all that talk about the "halo effect" from the iPod then the iPhone benefiting Mac sales, that was in addition to their profit margin not as a substitute for it. It's not that a brand doesn't have value, it's just that there are other, lower risk, ways to achieve the same goal.
Consolidation happens all around you. The auto industry, the newspaper industry, the over priced sanitized coffee house industry, PCs, airlines, social media, railways... Even housewares such as kettles have undergone "a mass wave of consolidation".
I did say it would be the talk in the financial press... It's not about consumers saying they want less choice, it's about investors saying they won't invest in a company that can't give them a return.
Competition drives profits towards zero. As long as any company is able to make a profit, others will want a piece of that action and will start to compete for customers. In the beginning this leads to innovation-- competing with ideas and technological and manufacturing improvements. Over time though, there will be enough companies that profit margins fall to near zero and there's no money left in the till for further innovation.
For all industries, but technology products in particular, it's the kiss of death. If you can't innovate, you'll simply fade away. To get money for innovation, you need investment-- either from your own profits for from outside investors. With no profit, thus no return on investment, nobody will pony up. The only path to profits from here is to reduce the number of competitors. Companies start merging and acquiring each other until they feel they have the ability to differentiate themselves again and justify a profit that they can then reinvest.