what's your point? Apple has no competition with iOS. If someone wants to use iOS, it's automatically a sale for Apple. If someone wants to use Android, Samsung has to compete for the sale against HTC, Google, Motorola, LG, etc.
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's Growth Trails Smartphone Market in 3Q 2013, but Improves in Broader Mobile Phone Market
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
what's your point? Apple has no competition with iOS. If someone wants to use iOS, it's automatically a sale for Apple. If someone wants to use Android, Samsung has to compete for the sale against HTC, Google, Motorola, LG, etc.
The mere fact that Samsung is putting better technology in to customers' hands for cheaper is changing the world.
I don't expect Apple to come up with the cheapest smartphone, but they can afford to lower their margins and hence prices. If they made the 5C $100 cheaper, some Chinese company may well come along and produce a cheaper clone, but that doesn't matter.
The world is not split in to "people who buy the very cheapest smartphone" and "people for whom cost is no issue". Given the current competitive state of the market, the iPhone is quite simply overpriced.
The reason for that is that iPhone prices were set at a time when the competitive landscape was overwhelmingly in Apple's favour. That's no longer the case; Google have made up significant ground and Apple hasn't managed to keep their very large lead.
I still think iPhones are the best smartphones on the market, but the question is whether or not they're better enough to justify their much higher price. The iPhone App ecosystem is definitely better, but the same was true of Mac once (remember when Adobe Photoshop was a Mac exclusive?).
Somehow, I get the feeling that you are making that comparison for disingenuous purposes. You are comparing a full year of Android to a launch quarter for Apple (where they obviously were selling down inventory the previous quarter and building up channel inventory this quarter).
For an apples to apples comparison, Apple shipped 135.8 million iPhones in 2012. Gartner estimated 130.1 million end user sales. That's just 4.2% of shipped phones that were not sold to end users. Less than half the Android rate.
I explained why the quotes fit the current situation here.
What Jobs was talking about fits with a lot of the other more general things he said about a company should be run. He wasn't speaking about one specific case; he was speaking generally - that Apple became too greedy and chased immediate profits rather than lowering their margins and playing the long game by making their technology more affordable/accessible.
Many would see the parallels and say that Apple at the moment is trying to milk their customers with overpriced smartphones. The way you consider whether or not something is 'over'priced is by considering what benefits it offers over its competitors against its price difference.
Right now, the competitive gap is much smaller than it was when these prices were first introduced. That's why I think the iPhone is overpriced.
By that definition any product that I don't choose to buy is overpriced.
That's circular logic.
Guilty. I owe you a beer. It was to point out that anyone can come up with poor sounding values.
The difference being, of course, that...
Your examples use estimates which could easily be off by 10% to start with.
My example used official figures.
The difference being, of course, that...
Your examples use estimates which could easily be off by 10% to start with.
My example used official figures.
That was actually the original point that I was making.
Shipped vs sold is not something to be dismissed as irrelevant, but it's also not something that changes the discussion based on the current estimates that we have. Who cares if Android's market share is 77% or 80%?
By that definition any product that I don't choose to buy is overpriced.
No it isn't; you're just looking at it backwards. If you feel a product is overpriced, you don't buy it.
The logic informs the decision; the decision doesn't inform the logic.
There is no logic involved. Your "definition" is nothing but a subjective comparison. "Is it worth it to me?" That's not "overpriced". That's how the market works.
Microsoft put technology into customers' hands for cheaper than the Mac. Did that change the world? Yes. Is all change good? No. Plastic bags changed the world too...there's a plastic island the size of Texas in the Pacific Ocean now. Microsoft put an inferior user experience, Windows, into the hands of anyone and everyone. Android is Microsoft redux. Don't get me wrong, I think it's good that everyone has access to technology, at a low cost, but making the best experience possible for the majority of people is I think Apple's desire. But cost often wins in people's minds over what's right, whether that be PCs, phones, or grocery bags.
Apple tried that Microsoft/Android strategy in the 90s, licensing out the MacOS to third-party computer manufacturers, and it just about destroyed the company. Apple is an integrated systems company, not a hardware company or a software company, and to thrive they have to continue down that path.
If Apple was to make hardware they could sell at prices competitive to cheap Android devices, would their vision still be intact? That vision of having the best holistic user experience for customers? I don't think so. They don't want to make a phone that compromises the brand or the vision that brand represents.
So you have internal figures on how Apple allocates their money? How do you know Apple can afford to lower margins? Between R&D costs, paying their employees well, investing in expansion, greening their facilities, buying companies, giving away software for free, improving data services, you can sit there and say their margins are too high?
Let's not forget that Android device manufacturers get their software for just about free, aside from any tweaks they do. They don't have to worry about running an app store, or data services like Maps. Their overhead costs are much lower.
Last edited:
No, because these numbers are units. One $600 phone, one $300 phone, one $100 phone, each is one unit. But with the same margin, that $100 phone has only 1/6th of the profit of the $600 phone.
Apple's cash on hand increase every quarter. They could introduce a lower margin product if they wanted to.
Apple's app store more than pays for itself with their 30% cut on all transactions.
What you quoted is a known statement that Jobs made, specifically directed at Sculley, who in Jobs' opinion was a pure marketing man who tried to maximise profits in the wrong way.
iPhones are not overpriced - the proof is 9 million sold in the first week.
Last weekend I loaded up on gift cards - WH Smith was selling £40 worth of iTunes gift cards for £30. Now you can do the maths: When I buy items from the app store with a price tag of £40, the developers get £28. I actually paid £30. There's just £2 left.
And these thoughts come after apple gave so much for free ???
Pages, Numbers, Keynote , iPhoto ,iMovie , Garageband and of course OS 10.9 ??
Sounds about right. Worldwide iOS is the "best of the rest" with Android way out in front in terms of market share.
I think that Windows Phone is a bigger threat to iOS than iOS is to Android.
From the table
Android is 6 time the share of iOS
iOS is only 3.5 times the share of Windows Phone.
Also Windows Phone had the fastest Y/Y change.
In Europe Windows Phone is even closer to iOS in share. 9.2% in EU5.
http://www.gpsbusinessnews.com/Is-Windows-Phone-Back-9-2-Market-Share-in-EU-5_a4436.html
Not sure how it will play out, but as along as Samsung keep producing cheaper phones with android, the total number of mobile OS will be Android. That doesn't mean it is a better OS.
I am hoping we get to the point where we can have any OS on any phone like we can do with laptops.
----------
It was 2 years ago, now it is just 2 year old tech.
As I said, you can't just break people down in to "those who will pay as little as possible" and "those for whom price is no object". For most people, it's a cost/benefit situation, and they'd be willing to pay more for something that's worth the extra money.
Microsoft's inferior user experience wasn't because devices running Windows were cheaper.
Apple has plenty of room to lower their margins. You know how I know that? Because even after all of those costs, they're sitting on a massive mountain of cash.
They could have used the billions they're giving out in dividends to lower their margins, improve the accessibility of their products and strengthen both the platform and the company. In my opinion, investors would have responded much better to that. Even right now they under-value Apple because of negative prospects while over-valuing Amazon. Having a product that's indispensable to lots of people makes a company much more valuable than a dividend.
Apple has a small PC market share, but has no problems with profits, software, nor accessories.
Another high end specs for low price (thin profit for manufacturer but great for customers)
$349 unlocked/off-contract is about half the cost of iphone/GalaxyS4/Galaxy Note
Specs
Fat profit margin vs thin profit margin.
Which benefits customers more? And Amazon will join in the game in the near future. There is money to be had at selling high end smartphone at low profit margin.
$349 unlocked/off-contract is about half the cost of iphone/GalaxyS4/Galaxy Note
Specs
Fat profit margin vs thin profit margin.
Which benefits customers more? And Amazon will join in the game in the near future. There is money to be had at selling high end smartphone at low profit margin.
Comparing to the Nexus devices isn't fair. IIRC, Nexus devices are sold at cost (i.e. zero-margin). That's not a scalable business model for anybody.
The Nexus program is really meant for developers and OEMs, not for the general consumer.
I'll probably buy one and I'm not a developer. I know a good deal when I see one.
Btw, Google offers search, mail, and Android for "zero-margin" and they are scaling just fine. Advertising is a very scalable business model.
It's more than relevant: Apple don't want to be Samsung. Apple has different target and a totally different strategy. Apple just don't wanton to flood the market with a range of phones of any type, size and price, most of them trashware.
Who's right ? No one is going to line all the night to buy the latest Samsung flagship, so I have a good idea of who's right ...
It's just business, nothing's fair. The Nexus 5 is specifically designed for both the general public and developers. That speaks to the terrific advantages of Googles good intentions and proof that they are giving good deals to the customers.
It may be hard for some to comprehend since Apples prices are so high, but people including myself will part with an excess amount of money because we want Apples product.
I use and enjoy Android & Apple. In lieu of an iPhone that appeals to me this year I bought a Galaxy Note 3, and will be buying a Nexus 5. I like the variety & choices in the market place.