That makes as much sense as saying the graph is incomplete because sales of Hershey's bars aren't included. The graph represents sales of smart phones, not the components needed to make them.
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 Rakes in Over Half of Mobile Phone Industry's Fourth Quarter Profits
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That makes as much sense as saying the graph is incomplete because sales of Hershey's bars aren't included. The graph represents sales of smart phones, not the components needed to make them.
That would be interesting... but I don't think they are close and when Verizon ships the iPhone, then we'll see how the real numbers pan out. Or at least more real since US customers will have a choice finally.
I'm guessing you don't live in the US then. How much does it cost to buy an iPhone on contract?
An analogy
To make a bad analogy:
Most cell phone makers are selling horses. Apple is selling cars. As people dump their horses for cars, Apple's market share will grow. In a few years, almost nobody will have a regular old touch-tone cell phone. It will be 90% smartphones. There is huge upside for Apple here, and for the old-school cell companies such as Nokia, it is likely that they are too far behind the curve to catch up now.
To make a bad analogy:
Most cell phone makers are selling horses. Apple is selling cars. As people dump their horses for cars, Apple's market share will grow. In a few years, almost nobody will have a regular old touch-tone cell phone. It will be 90% smartphones. There is huge upside for Apple here, and for the old-school cell companies such as Nokia, it is likely that they are too far behind the curve to catch up now.
Gosh
Before we get too smug over Apple's superiority.. and while Apple's share of the profits still is impressive..
One Massive thing to note is that these manufacturers are NOT exclusively smartphone makers.
So while Apple only has the iPhone range, with which it can evidently skim lots of profits:
Motorola, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, Nokia etc sell a lots of 'dumbphones'
on which the profits are going to be a lot smaller.
This is going to be a larger factor in the discrepancy, which is hinted at in the original article: "Apple focussing on premium end etc. ie Smartphones.
Good comparison would be Droid X vs iPhone 4, and look at profits per unit to really see how good Apple is in managing costs/extracting 'value' out of the consumer.
All this 'race to the bottom' talk is deliberate for certain handsets, however these manufacturers, having more than model (thank god for the consumer like me who likes choice) all have their premium top of the range which sell exactly for as much as iPhone 4, some Android phones even having improved/more modern components eg SGX 540, larger SAMOLED screens etc.
e.g: Nexus S 429GBP unlocked (16GB 1Ghz Hummingbird (A4), SGX 540, 512MB RAM, 4inch SAMOLED 800x 480)
iPhone 4 499GBP unlocked (16 GB, 800mhz A4, SGX535, 512MB RAM, 3.5 Inch IPS LCD 960 x 680)
would be interesting comparison. the higher res lcd plus glass back and front must cost a fair bit so overal they may cost the same to produce, but one retails 70GBP higher. (Software value is seperate/subjective, just looking purely at hardware) Also, Samsung know they are not going to be pushing iP4 numbers (they wouldnt even want to having their Galaxy X 2 coming out in 2 weeks) so economies of scale would be less.
So while you have the mytouch slides etc. you have the Droid 2, HTC G2 HTC Desire HDs etc, that all are priced comparably to iPhone (though all available on lower plans in UK compared to iPhone, which still requires cash outlay unless you choose a pretty expensive contract)
Before we get too smug over Apple's superiority.. and while Apple's share of the profits still is impressive..
One Massive thing to note is that these manufacturers are NOT exclusively smartphone makers.
So while Apple only has the iPhone range, with which it can evidently skim lots of profits:
Motorola, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, Nokia etc sell a lots of 'dumbphones'
on which the profits are going to be a lot smaller.
This is going to be a larger factor in the discrepancy, which is hinted at in the original article: "Apple focussing on premium end etc. ie Smartphones.
Good comparison would be Droid X vs iPhone 4, and look at profits per unit to really see how good Apple is in managing costs/extracting 'value' out of the consumer.
All this 'race to the bottom' talk is deliberate for certain handsets, however these manufacturers, having more than model (thank god for the consumer like me who likes choice) all have their premium top of the range which sell exactly for as much as iPhone 4, some Android phones even having improved/more modern components eg SGX 540, larger SAMOLED screens etc.
e.g: Nexus S 429GBP unlocked (16GB 1Ghz Hummingbird (A4), SGX 540, 512MB RAM, 4inch SAMOLED 800x 480)
iPhone 4 499GBP unlocked (16 GB, 800mhz A4, SGX535, 512MB RAM, 3.5 Inch IPS LCD 960 x 680)
would be interesting comparison. the higher res lcd plus glass back and front must cost a fair bit so overal they may cost the same to produce, but one retails 70GBP higher. (Software value is seperate/subjective, just looking purely at hardware) Also, Samsung know they are not going to be pushing iP4 numbers (they wouldnt even want to having their Galaxy X 2 coming out in 2 weeks) so economies of scale would be less.
So while you have the mytouch slides etc. you have the Droid 2, HTC G2 HTC Desire HDs etc, that all are priced comparably to iPhone (though all available on lower plans in UK compared to iPhone, which still requires cash outlay unless you choose a pretty expensive contract)
Last edited:
But to my understanding, your monthly phone rates are much cheaper than ours. My plan costs about 90 Euros ($125) per-month with unlimited calling.
So you pay more for the hardware, but we pay more for the phone plans. Correct?I guess we all pay somewhere?
I'd rather pay Apple than my carrier.
so it means it shows how greedy Apple is.
It provides under power and over priced point for phones to its users. And Apple fans try to say there is no "Apple Tax"
It provides under power and over priced point for phones to its users. And Apple fans try to say there is no "Apple Tax"
Greedy? If you just look at prices, do you realize that back in the days, dumbphones from Nokia can hold prices in the thousands of dollars on release date? The greedy ones are the OEMs like HTC. Motorola, and the likes, where they prefer to bend over for the carriers and get deals with them as they are desperate for profit instead of delivering what the consumers want.
I would also say
That a massive, massive plus to all the Android domination is the undoubted app-support that will have to follow.
If that is shorted as market should dictate that will be amazing, as of now that is major strength of iOS...
That a massive, massive plus to all the Android domination is the undoubted app-support that will have to follow.
If that is shorted as market should dictate that will be amazing, as of now that is major strength of iOS...
Money talks 2
CNET WEB SITE JANUARY 31, 2011 4:00 AM PST
An Apple fan does
some soul-searching
q&a Mike Daisey loves Apple products, but he's not so happy about how they're made. He went to China to talk to factory workers, and chronicled the trip in his theater piece "The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs."
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/#ixzz1Ce3gVbOH
CNET WEB SITE JANUARY 31, 2011 4:00 AM PST
An Apple fan does
some soul-searching
q&a Mike Daisey loves Apple products, but he's not so happy about how they're made. He went to China to talk to factory workers, and chronicled the trip in his theater piece "The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs."
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/#ixzz1Ce3gVbOH
So I would *hope* the charts are breaking things out by smartphone or at least mobile phone profits/loss, and not looking at overall company profitability -- for example, Mac sales and iPad sales should not be included for Apple.
I do know that Moto's mobile division was losing money before Android came along, and from that graph I would venture to say they are still losing money or breaking even (that sort of graph does not illustrate loss very well, since there is no way to show a negative number) -- I could not find the actual data associated with the charts.
I don't think all these top-eight vendors break their financials down in a way so that all the details can be discerned. Again, that is why I believe that statistics are misleading (as is accounting).
I still stick by what I said -- Apple has differentiated itself and has set the bar for where you have to be at in terms of price if you want to compete. If there are higher-priced phones than the iPhone, I would be interested to know which and how those sold. Certainly, Apple is not racing to the bottom on price and it does not look like they need to from a business perspective.
8400 WP7 phones sold per day
The low sales numbers explain the promotions: buy one - get one free, WP7 phone + Xbox bundle, etc.
Android's 53% marketshare corresponds to 12 million smartphones sold to US customers. This hints that 0.45 million W7 phones were sold in the US in 4Q/2010 or an average of 8,400 W7 phones per day since launch on Nov 8, 2010. Thus after launch day (40,000 WP7 phones sold), sales ebbed quite a bit...
The low sales numbers explain the promotions: buy one - get one free, WP7 phone + Xbox bundle, etc.
This is downright goofy. Apple offers the best mobile experience, hands down. What good is "over power" hardware if its utilization or effective use is squat?
I do own 2 iPhones... but this just shows how overpriced the iPhone is.
Why? Why is it overpriced? First, my iPhone has more processing power than the first 3 computers I owned. It has more storage space and more memory than them too. It has remarkable quality, fit and finish. Companies are in business to make money. Companies that price war to the point that they have razor thin profits are the companies laying off workers in this economy. Companies need capital to invest in jobs.
Second, I paid $300 with a contract. My previous Windows Mobile phone, I paid $400 with a contract. Most phones are similarly priced to the consumer. That $50 android phone is not comparable to an iPhone. There are lacking features and finish. You get a comparable Android, Like a Droid X or Evo, and the prices are similar.
I get more use per dollar out of my iPhone than any other item I own.
We all know that Apple has taken the approach that profts, not market share, are what matter most.
This is especially true since Steve Jobs' return to Apple. Part of this strategy was due to being the minority player in the Mac vs. PC war and part due to Steve/Apple's philospophy of focusing on building great products and not really worrying/caring about what competitors are doing.
We'll never know what would have happend to the world if Steve stayed at Apple from 85-95 and continued to build great products. I still think Microsoft would have taken the corporate market and gained the higher market share for Windows PCs. So we'd sort of be where we are now anyway.
It will be very interesting to see if history repeats itself in the smartphone (mobile computer) market...
Will the free/low cost market saturation approach (Google Android) "win" or will Apple's premium product approach win? More importantly, does it matter? Does there have to be only be one winner?
As Apple showed from 2001-2007, it was doing more than fine with Mac OS X, Macs, Pro software and the iPod. Now, I don't think Apple wants to lose the 50% of its revenue that comes from iOS devices, but I also don't think Apple will be in dire straights if iOS loses a bit of share to others.
If Android becomes a "good enough" solution for the majority of users (maybe it is that already), it will grab the majority of market share. This market is much larger than even the PC market and for most people, a "good enough" smartphone is good enough.
The interesting component here is that Google is not in the business of selling hardware and software. Or at least, that is not where Google expects to make the majority of its cash.
Google is in the business of selling ads delivered by hardware/software. Very similar to other ad supported business such as TV or publishing. This means that Google needs eyeballs. Without scale, they suffer.
Then the question turns to Apple and if it can thrive by selling premium iOS devices and a premium cost to "the rest of us".
This is especially true since Steve Jobs' return to Apple. Part of this strategy was due to being the minority player in the Mac vs. PC war and part due to Steve/Apple's philospophy of focusing on building great products and not really worrying/caring about what competitors are doing.
We'll never know what would have happend to the world if Steve stayed at Apple from 85-95 and continued to build great products. I still think Microsoft would have taken the corporate market and gained the higher market share for Windows PCs. So we'd sort of be where we are now anyway.
It will be very interesting to see if history repeats itself in the smartphone (mobile computer) market...
Will the free/low cost market saturation approach (Google Android) "win" or will Apple's premium product approach win? More importantly, does it matter? Does there have to be only be one winner?
As Apple showed from 2001-2007, it was doing more than fine with Mac OS X, Macs, Pro software and the iPod. Now, I don't think Apple wants to lose the 50% of its revenue that comes from iOS devices, but I also don't think Apple will be in dire straights if iOS loses a bit of share to others.
If Android becomes a "good enough" solution for the majority of users (maybe it is that already), it will grab the majority of market share. This market is much larger than even the PC market and for most people, a "good enough" smartphone is good enough.
The interesting component here is that Google is not in the business of selling hardware and software. Or at least, that is not where Google expects to make the majority of its cash.
Google is in the business of selling ads delivered by hardware/software. Very similar to other ad supported business such as TV or publishing. This means that Google needs eyeballs. Without scale, they suffer.
Then the question turns to Apple and if it can thrive by selling premium iOS devices and a premium cost to "the rest of us".
I had this same question, and unfortunately, I don't believe that they are limiting this to just Apple's iPhone profits. I at least looked around at the site, and it just looked like they were using the company's profits as a whole.
Which makes what could be an interesting comparison completely pointless - profits from iPods and Macs and iPads are not related to iPhone profits.
I mean, consider what the graph would look like if the Windows 7 phone were added. .5% of the market and yet more profit than Apple.
Now maybe they did specify in some hidden part of their site that they were just using Apple's iPhone profits...but I didn't see it, and I'm not even sure that Apple breaks those numbers out.
The retail price has zero to do with the overpricing here though. Apparently Apple is able to produce their phones a lot cheaper than others then (although I have disagree on the same retail price, at least here in Europe a lot of the Android phones are a lot cheaper). But Apple is keeping a larger margin of the retail for profits. That is why in comparision with the rest of the market it is overpriced ..
Good news for Apple stockholders I guess (although they not seeing much dividends either) .. not so much for the customers.
T.
I do own 2 iPhones... but this just shows how overpriced the iPhone is.
You have a choice. To buy or not. Unlike me, nobody forced you to buy. I bought because somebody with a lead pipe looking like John Ives on crack started smashing up my apartment and wouldn't stop until i bought an iPhone 3g and an iPod Touch. Said he break my legs by the end of the year if i didn't buy a MBP or iMac.