Apple Recorded More Than Half of Total Smartphone Industry Revenue in iPhone X Launch Quarter

[gim]

No, you cannot make more than 100% of the profits. That idea was just a stupid reporter math fail. The only reason it sounded good at the time was that the losses were just the right size to make click bait.

==========================
Example of how stupid it is to sum profits
and losses across the industry to create
a percentage of just profit:
===============================

Apple makes $9B
Samsung makes $1B
Others lose $20B
-----------------
Sum : -$10B

Therefore by stupid blogger math, Apple made $9B/-$10B = "MINUS 90% of the profits". Which makes no sense. And that's because the number that idiot reporter was using was NOT the "total" profits, but the sum of the profits and losses for the entire industry.

The correct way to report the above is that Apple made 90% of the industry profits, Samsung made 10% of the profits, and all others in total lost $20B.

It's even worse if it adds up to zero.

Thank you. Every year I have to read this same stupid claim on this website.

There is no such thing as negative profit. That's a loss.
And if the whole smartphone industry profit would be one cake, how could anybody have more than the whole cake that's available...

 

[deckard666]

No product produced by Apple is life essential - every product they manufacture is a luxury and luxury always costs...

 

[omenatarhuri]

Gee, what a monster this company! One day there's going to be a paradigm shift from smart phones, that day looks scary for Apple with so much dependency on one product.

Don't see them losing the market before said paradigm shift so should be an incredible money machine for many more years. Bought back some APPL lately.

 

[BvizioN]

I never understood this notion that consumers are "forced" to buy products. Were you forced to buy an iPhone or any Apple products, Samsung, LG, Sony? You mentioned there are cheaper options as a reply to another comment but do you own any of the "cheaper" options and would never buy another Apple product until they lower their prices? People have choices and they choose to buy a product because it works for them or it's their preference. Are you gonna claim Batterygate "forced" people to upgrade their phones? That's a bit cynical isn't it?

I guess every time someone uses sarcasm in this forum should make readers aware of iit in order to be understood it seems.

 

[Kabeyun]

Music in the investors ears not the consumers!

You’re suggesting that people bought an iPhone X, but only grudgingly? Data, please.
[doublepost=1518723296][/doublepost]

I guess every time someone uses sarcasm in this forum should make readers aware of iit in order to be understood it seems.

Yep. That’s the curse of text-based forums. The more removed you are from face-to-face communication, the more intent requires clarification. That’s why emojis got started in the first place.

 

[kdarling]

Thank you. Every year I have to read this same stupid claim on this website.

Thank you. It is SO bad every time it's brought up.

And if the whole smartphone industry profit would be one cake, how could anybody have more than the whole cake that's available...

Exactly. Here's another example of how stupidly it can work out:

Apple makes $1B
Samsung makes $1B
Others lose $1B
-----------------
Sum : $1B

Holy smokes, Apple and Samsung each just made $1B/$1B = 100% of the "total industry profits" !!

BOTH MADE 100%!! Woo hoo!

Ridiculous.

 

[Apple_Robert]

But there are cheaper options. A lot of cheaper options.

It's not the same.

Apple Product = Marry your best friend and make your life and hers iTerrific. Brand X = Being fixed up on a blind date by your sister with a friend who has had 4 previous marriages with 6 kids, and a ton of emotional baggage for which there is no way to upgrade the software; all of the blind date features are fragmented.

 

[I7guy]

I really don't think you understand what too big to fail means…

What is not being understood is the differentiation from its competitors.

 

[gnasher729]

No, you cannot make more than 100% of the profits. That idea was just a stupid reporter math fail. The only reason it sounded good at the time was that the losses were just the right size to make click bait.

==========================
Example of how stupid it is to sum profits
and losses across the industry to create
a percentage of just profit:
===============================

Apple makes $9B
Samsung makes $1B
Others lose $20B
-----------------
Sum : -$10B

Therefore by stupid blogger math, Apple made $9B/-$10B = "MINUS 90% of the profits". Which makes no sense. And that's because the number that idiot reporter was using was NOT the "total" profits, but the sum of the profits and losses for the entire industry.

The correct way to report the above is that Apple made 90% of the industry profits, Samsung made 10% of the profits, and all others in total lost $20B.

It's even worse if it adds up to zero.

Absolutely wrong. Your hypotheticals don’t count, because they don’t match reality. The loss makers’ losses are nowhere near Apple’s profit.

 

[I7guy]

Thank you. Every year I have to read this same stupid claim on this website.

There is no such thing as negative profit. That's a loss.
And if the whole smartphone industry profit would be one cake, how could anybody have more than the whole cake that's available...

The analogy about a cake or pie isn’t accurate because more revenue for one maker does not imply less revenue for another maker, which would be the case if the revenue or profit were indeed a pie or cake.

 

[mrow]

I'm not bothered by Samsung and Google products, I have zero interest in them. My gripe is about like for like prices for Apple products over the last few years.

In my eyes there are three product ranges where the prices have increased in the last couple years but I think there is also an explanation for it as well.

First is the MacBook Pro. The the price hasn't really gone up, they just don't offer a base model with fewer features like they used to. They used to offer a model with less storage, no discreet GPU and the base model CPU fell lower in Intels lineup. Those three things account for the base models price increase of $400.

The second in the Apple TV. The base model iOS based Apple TV was $99 for years. The base price for the 4th generation and 4K has increased from that. A big part of that is the increase in the storage included from ~8GB in the 2nd and 3rd gen to a minimum of 32GB in the 4th gen and 4K. Honestly, I wish they would offer a model with less storage again. All I want to use it for is audio and video playback. I am never going to download any games. 8GB would be more than enough to store the apps I'm using. They also use a beefier "X" series processor in the 4th gen and 4K.

The third product category is the iPhone, specifically the iPhone X. I think that one is self explanatory.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

Given about half of every iPhone is made by Samsung...I'm not so sure that they are that worried about being "second"

Aside from the display (which even has an Apple "mystery chip" on it), there appears to be NOTHING sourced from Samsung in the iPhone X:

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+X+Teardown/98975


...nor in the iPhone 8, where I'm not sure if even the Display is Samsung:

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+8+Teardown/97481


So, please do try to keep up.

 

[apolloa]

It's my own choice to buy Apple products but I would be a lot more happy about it if they were a bit cheaper.

Yeap, this sort of news only highlights the profiteering Apple does with its big mark ups on its devices.
The even sadder thing is the competition that then follows them... look at the Note 8 and Pixel 2 XL, undercutting the iPhone X... just...

It really is a golden age for these giant corporations and their investors at the cleanse of the consumer.
I do wonder though, how much of this profit over the last year was driven by the deliberate throttling of iPhone 6 and 6S devices?

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

The iPhone is not necessarily “Made” by Samsung. The iPhone incorporates components from Samsung being a supplier, (I.e.)-OLED display, Nand Flash, A-Series Processor. Apple still manufacturers their own iPhones, but other supplier components still contribute.

But as I have stated before in this thread, and others on MR, that is simply NOT the case. Other than the AMOLED Display in the iPhone X, there is NOT ONE THING of Samsung's in either the iPhone 8 or iPhone X:

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...x-launch-quarter.2106200/page-3#post-25818199
[doublepost=1518726942][/doublepost]

Your wording wasn’t appropriately conveyed. For the record, I never mentioned the word “Manufactured” either in my post, you stated that. However; you stated this originally:



Again, that’s not accurate, even though you’re trying to clear the misconception from your wording. I simply iterated that Samsung is a component supplier amongst other component manufacturers, Which the iPhone is not “Made” by Samsung.

But, you're BOTH wrong:

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...x-launch-quarter.2106200/page-3#post-25818199

 

[44267547]

But as I have stated before in this thread, and others on MR, that is simply NOT the case. Other than the AMOLED Display in the iPhone X, there is NOT ONE THING of Samsung's in either the iPhone 8 or iPhone X:

Perhaps take your time reading my first post. I’m NOT referring to what was manufactured in the iPhone X. I stated the “iPhone” incorporates components from Samsung being a supplier. I never referred to the iPhone X at all, you interjected a specific model with the X.

For reference, again:

The iPhone is not necessarily “Made” by Samsung. The iPhone incorporates components from Samsung being a supplier, (I.e.)-OLED display, Nand Flash, A-Series Processor. Apple still manufacturers their own iPhones, but other supplier components still contribute.

 

[creediddy]

Unless you're a stock holder why are most of the commentators here so happy to pay kind of monopolistic prices?

How is Apple a monopoly? Consumers pay for what is believed is perceived value.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

It really is a golden age for these giant corporations and their investors at the cleanse of the consumer.
I do wonder though, how much of this profit over the last year was driven by the deliberate throttling of iPhone 6 and 6S devices?

Wonder no more. I have the answer:

ZERO.

Got it?

 

[G5isAlive]

Interesting. Just a few months ago, these forums were rife with iPhone 8/8+/X criticism and how Timmy needs to go!

Moved on to criticize the HomePod

 

[gim]

The analogy about a cake or pie isn’t accurate because more revenue for one maker does not imply less revenue for another maker, which would be the case if the revenue or profit were indeed a pie or cake.

It is accurate, you just don't understand it.
First of all, this is about profit, not revenue.
The whole profit of the whole industry makes up one whole cake. More profit just makes the cake bigger.

 

[I7guy]

Yeap, this sort of news only highlights the profiteering Apple does with its big mark ups on its devices.
The even sadder thing is the competition that then follows them... look at the Note 8 and Pixel 2 XL, undercutting the iPhone X... just...

It really is a golden age for these giant corporations and their investors at the cleanse of the consumer.
I do wonder though, how much of this profit over the last year was driven by the deliberate throttling of iPhone 6 and 6S devices?

This depends on if you believe Apple wasn’t being transparent or it was being “sneaky”.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

Perhaps take your time reading my first post. I’m NOT referring to what was manufactured in the iPhone X. I stated the “iPhone” incorporates components from Samsung being a supplier. I never referred to the iPhone X at all, you interjected a specific model with the X.

For reference, again:

Perhaps it is YOU that needs to start reading more carefully.

Before you Replied, you should FIRST take a look at the iFixit teardowns I linked.

Other than the AMOLED Display in the iPhone X, none of the COMPONENTS in either the iPhone X nor the iPhone 8 are supplied by Samsung, EITHER.

And it doesn't matter you didn't specify a legacy model. iPhones in production TODAY use NO Samsung components if they can POSSIBLY help it.

But just to make you happy, going back in time a bit, we have the iPhone 5. NO SAMSUNG COMPONENTS:

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+5+Teardown/10525


Same with the iPhone 6:

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+6+Teardown/29213


iPhone 7: ONE Samsung Component (among several). a RAM Chip. W00t! Hynix must have not been able to meet Apple's order requirements that year:

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+7+Teardown/67382


iPhone SE: NO Samsung Components again:

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+7+Teardown/67382


So, across SIX iPhone Models (including the 8 and iPhone X from my previous Post), we have a total of TWO known Samsung Components.

Honestly, there are so few actual Display manufacturers in the world, I would not be surprised if some of the other iPhones have Samsung-manufactured Displays as well. And with RAM and Flash being solidly "commodity" items, I would also expect that some iPhone "Runs" across some or all of these models may very well have either Samsung RAM or Flash in them.

But I think you can see from these iFixit teardowns, that in NO WAY does Samsung have ANY sort of a "dominant presence" (or even hardly a "discernable presence") in iPhones over the last SEVERAL models.

 

[I7guy]

It is accurate, you just don't understand it.
First of all, this is about profit, not revenue.
The whole profit of the whole industry makes up one whole cake. More profit just makes the cake bigger.

No, your analogy is wrong and the thread is regarding revenue.

Because at any time the smartphone market could expand, even by one person. There aren’t more slices in the pie thenhniverse got bigger and the one person could buy an iPhone and galaxy, while huawei and oppo arenatrugging to get customers. Since profit is revenue - cost, each companies cost is independent of the other companies. Again pie analogy fails.

 

[44267547]

Perhaps it is YOU that needs to start reading more carefully.

Before you Replied, you should FIRST take a look at the iFixit teardowns I linked.

You can create a strawman argument all you want, I clearly indicated past iPhones have used SamSung components. You don't need to convolute the discussion with non-debatable semantics that have nothing to do with my prior post that were completely accurate and you want to bury the fact that you interjected the iPhone X into the argument, Which had no relevance to my post whatsoever from the beginning. The fact is, the iPhone has used SamSung components before in the past and we don’t need to refer to iFixit teardowns just to prove to that. Nor is that in relation to anything when I had to say about an iPhone using Nand flash, OLED display, A-Series processor. Reality is, you misquoted me bringing the “iPhone X” into the discussion that had nothing in relation when I said “iPhone” in general.

Also, for the record, I’m not insinuating anything about Samsung having dominance over the iPhone or anything of that matter, I was strictly talking about they have contributed components to the iPhone in the past. You’re entirely going on a different tangent. I think this discussion is more than enough exhausted.

 

[Will.O.Bie]

I guess every time someone uses sarcasm in this forum should make readers aware of iit in order to be understood it seems.

LOL! That's my fault...I should be more aware of one's sarcasm cause I'm guilty of it sometimes as well. All is good my friend!
[doublepost=1518729654][/doublepost]

Yep. That’s the curse of text-based forums. The more removed you are from face-to-face communication, the more intent requires clarification. That’s why emojis got started in the first place.

This is true so my apologies to BvizioN.

 

[djcerla]

Constant flood of FUD about poor iPhone X sales orchestrated (successfully) to depress the stock price... now over.

In AAPL shareholders parlance is "silly season". This year, Wall Street created a great silly season basically out of nothing. Kudos.

 

[gim]

No, your analogy is wrong and the thread is regarding revenue.

Because at any time the smartphone market could expand, even by one person. There aren’t more slices in the pie thenhniverse got bigger and the one person could buy an iPhone and galaxy, while huawei and oppo arenatrugging to get customers. Since profit is revenue - cost, each companies cost is independent of the other companies. Again pie analogy fails.

The article was edited, the original version clearly used the term profit. Hence the discussion about the "Apple takes more than 100% of profits" passage. So don't apply my analogy to revenue, I have never mentioned that word.

But I feel sorry that you're struggling so hard with this.
Every time the smartphone industry grows profit wise, the hypothetical cake gets bigger, which means that every company's share of the cake is, like you said, independent from the other companies.

Example: If Apple gets a 80% share of a 1 pound cake, and their profit doesn't increase, but the industry as a whole doubles its profit - Apple would get a 40% share of a 2 pound cake. I hope you can do the math, because Apple's profit hasn't changed in this case just because the others made more profit.

The analogy doesn't fail. Have you ever seen a pie chart?