In Europe the high-end Nokia's *are* subsidised.
In the UK I have seen hundreds and hundreds of iPhones. I have seen Android devices.
But I have never seen a single N97 in the wild.
Not one.
Not ever.
C.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's iPhone Continues to Outpace Smartphone Industry Growth
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In Europe the high-end Nokia's *are* subsidised.
In the UK I have seen hundreds and hundreds of iPhones. I have seen Android devices.
But I have never seen a single N97 in the wild.
Not one.
Not ever.
C.
I hope it is. The device looks great, but it seems a little unfinished.
Nokia needs a response to iPhone, Android and Palm, and I don't think a Symbian device can be that response.
This is true. And I don't think anyone can come close to those volumes in emerging markets. But I don't think anyone else would want to go there either. Certainly not Apple.
C.
In case you haven't been paying attention, you just think 500$+ is the high-end. It's actually pretty good low-end to mid-end. Most phones unsubsidized run for that much, including the "dumbphones".
Apple doesn't compete in the high-end cellphone market. The sexy, fashionnable high-end cellphone with a valet button market.
Again, things like the Vertu Ascent Ferrari made by Nokia are high-end. They are also very very low volume.
And seriously, as a consumer, I couldn't give a rats ass about profits. Actually, quite the contrary, if a company is shipping low volumes and making high profits, I'm going to tend to be thinking I'm getting ripped off.
And you know who matters in business, moreso than shareholders ? Consumers. They bring in the revenue.
Enter N900. It's a few months old already and better in about every way to the 3GS.
For someone trying to argue against Nokia, you're very ill informed.
I'm struggling how the title of this piece is "Apple's iPhone Continues to Outpace Smartphone Industry Growth" when they lost market share in the last quarter and pretty much everyone else gained market share.
Sure, they may have grown more than other companies but if I started a phone company last year and sold 2 phones, but this year I sold 10 phones, I'd be outpacing industry growth also!
Or are we now using a new metric now that Apple is losing market share?
How about shiny-ness for a new metric? Apple would win there.
Sure, they may have grown more than other companies but if I started a phone company last year and sold 2 phones, but this year I sold 10 phones, I'd be outpacing industry growth also!
Or are we now using a new metric now that Apple is losing market share?
How about shiny-ness for a new metric? Apple would win there.
This is exactly what it is. A new metric to put a positive spin on negative news. When you lose market share, you're not outpacing market growth, you're behind. The market grew more than you did.
No, Vertu phones made by Nokia win there. For a bunch of cellphone geeks, you guys sure don't know a lot about the real high-end.
i don't think many people would buy an iphone lite without app support. i mean, the whole point of owning one is for the app support. without it, you just have another touch screen phone.
anyways, with this growth, i expect a magically revolutionary upgrade come summer. then i'll buy one. i'm 2 years over for a new phone anyways. (4 years since i got my razr..)
anyways, with this growth, i expect a magically revolutionary upgrade come summer. then i'll buy one. i'm 2 years over for a new phone anyways. (4 years since i got my razr..)
I would not exactly call the N900 a phone. It is a freak-en computer/netbook with a phone function built into it.
That is taken from the guy who runs the Nokia expert site. A great device and I will not argue that but the it is a pretty bulky device.
That being said I still want one. It is a pretty sweet device even if it is a little on the large size. It still will fit in my pocket.
What about those gold plated/crystal encrusted iPhones?
Uh... where did you think they got the idea from ?
http://www.vertu.com/in-en/home#in-en_constellation/constellation-diamonds
Of course, the Vertu is an official product, not some cheap glitter glued on by some shady street peddler.
It's not as if this survey is a marketing tool for Apple. Year-over-year growth is a much more indicative statistic than quarter-over-quarter, especially for products with refresh cycles like Apple's. Apple's relative market share in the 4th quarter 2009 compared to the 3rd quarter 2009 is more indicative of its phenomenal increase in the first 3 quarters than poor performance in the 4th. Also, 4Q 2009 was marked by the introduction by new models of RIM and Android phones, but no update to the iPhone, so you would expect pent-up demand for those new phones to boost their sales. Finally, most businesses put more stock in year-over-year stats than quarterly results because the former also correct for seasonal variation in consumer behavior. If I were you, I would wait for 4Q 2010 results before proclaiming that the iPhone is failing.
You're forgetting that the 4th quarter of 2009 was the quarter where they sold the most iPhones, ever.
EVER.
And they still didn't manage to retain their market share. And you call that poor performance ? Yes it was poor, but that's only because the competition did phenomenally well. Also, as handset makers move to the different smartphone platforms, the market is going to get very big, very fast. If you look at the numbers in the overall cellphone market, Apple is single digit. Once the entire market has transitionned to smartphones, Apple is going to need a new metric to seperate their offering, or they'll show up as a very thin slice in marketing pies.
You still don't get it, do you? Yes, several other makes' NEW phones increased their sales more than Apple increased its sales with a 6 month old phone in one quarter. Apple increased its sales by a much larger margin than those other manufacturers in the 3 other quarters. Over the entire year, Apple increased its sales approximately twice as much as most other manufacturers.
Comparing these sales numbers is like comparing investments paying quarterly dividends. If you have an investment that pays a 100% dividend, divided into 30% in each of the first 3 quarters and 10% in the 4th quarter, you will still make more money than you will on an investment that pays a 10% dividend the first 3 quarters and then a 20% dividend in the 4th quarter, even though the latter had the better 4th quarter.
Do you suggest Apple should just sell a couple of awesome iPhones a year to a few chosen ones like Ferrari?
Based on Steve Jobs actions, he wants to be a Toyota and sell in millions to millions. But wait, if Apple sells so many it had to be a bad quality products. Sorry, it does make sense. iPhone is becoming mature as it saturates market, so it is normal for growth rate to slow, halt or even go negative. Everything is changing, nothing is ever lasting.
You still don't get it do you ? The 4th quarter was their best quarter yet. 20% for 3 quarters, 40% for last. Yet. They. Still. Lost.
Would a 6 month refresh cycle have really changed this ? The fact is, other makers are getting sales for a huge selection of models. The iPhone is a single trick pony. You either like it or you take your money elsewhere.
The iPhone is a good product, my initial point still remains true : It's not the best phone nor is it a market leader. Your prancing around the issue to spin it in a positive light doesn't change this very simple fact.
To be fair,you can't take one quarter of Apple iPhone marketshare decrease to equal doom and gloom. Lets see in 12 months time, if Apple's iPhone marketshare is still on the decrease then there's a problem.
12 months is a good indicator of marketshare change, and over the past 12 months, Apple have succeeded.
12 months is a good indicator of marketshare change, and over the past 12 months, Apple have succeeded.
I do have to agree you have to look year to year to really get a good picture. Apple 3Q iPhone sells normally would out paces everyone else but it matches their new releases. RIM had their big new release in the 4Q (9700) but RIM and other release phones at a fairly steady pace threw out the year
Or you can look at android phones that had huge boost right after new ones came out. I expect to see some good android boost come 2Q due to the new ones coming out on ATT. RIM will get a boost from the 9100 release so on.
For the most part RIM is able to out pace Apple and has a strong hold on a market apple is not targeting. RIM is the standard for communication and productivity tool (IT, Business, Push Email ect) and is the bar everyone tries to measure up to on that front. The iPhone seems to be the standard for the multimedia/Touch screen, web surfing phone and no one seems to change that. Yin/Yang seems to be how BB and iPhone seem to play out. They are the standard in the areas they do best in. Both phones try to play in the others enviroment and quite frankly neither do that good of a job at it. It is good enough to hold on to their core market and maybe even take a little but not close enough to be the new standard.
Have you even used Symbian? It's a freakin smartphone OS, it did what the iPhone did long before, just without touch. Now it has touch. You're thinking of S40, which is NOT Symbian.
Apple: the only smartphone maker not trying to artificially inflate market share by giving away a phone with every phone they sell.
I'd gladly choose to be in Apple's position right now vs. RIM, Palm, Android or *snicker* WinMo.
Isn't it the networks giving these phones away in the hopes that they get more revenue from a 2nd line?
Secondly, are these "By one get one free" offers worldwide? I can't seem to find the offer available in the UK myself, I'm not sure about other territories..
If it isn't a worldwide offer, it's hardly indicative of total fail and an artificially inflated market share is it?
The iPhone is very heavily subsidized by several hundred dollars, so not really different from any other smartphone. In Canada,you get can a iPhone on a 3 year term for $299, yet unsubsidized will cost you $799. Thats a difference of $500! Not much difference than any other high end smartphone!
In Canada I've never seen any smartphone offers - 2 for 1.
Nokia et al don't really care about the subsidy carriers offer - as long as they get their $$$. Whats so wrong with that? It is not artificially inflating marketshare at all - it is *real* marketshare.
Remember: The consumer pays full price ( or vastly more ) at the end of the day ( or contract!) . A $0 phone isn't a free phone, you'll pay for it.
Isn't it the networks giving these phones away in the hopes that they get more revenue from a 2nd line?
Yes, the carriers are obviously the drivers of these deals. But regardless of who is "behind it," those freebie phones increase market share for that mobile OS.
I never said it was a "total fail" but it's clear you're getting better market share numbers when you're dumping free phones on the market.
I have no idea what that has to do with the 2-for-1 deals and their impact on market share.
Apparently, the phones are likely heavily discounted to begin with, to make such 'freebie offers' possible.
It all boils down to - "We'll pay you to choose our stuff."
Ok this is just some one looking to come up with an excuse on WHY apple is better and discount number 2 which is winning.
First off it is just 1 network that is doing it.
2nd off on AT&T Apple iPhone is getting a $400 subsidity compared to the Blackberry $250. ($150 two year contract + $100 mail in rebate)
So using your logic the only reason Apple is doing so well is it is getting a much larger subsidy than everyone else. Honestly the iPhone is getting a larger subsidy than any other phone on AT&T network and safe to assume on the other carriers it is with it is getting a better subsidy price.
I suggest you learn some facts about the iPhone sweet heart deal before you go try to bash blackberries numbers because Apple has force its phone prices artificially lower than everyone else.
So much for that so called argument about BOGO.... looks like Apple had it own that at least match it if not caused it to better.
As explain above iPhone prices were lower than the other phones. Mix that with the fact that the iPhone have artifilly lower prices accross all networks it is on world wide instead of the ones just shoving bogo which is limited to just 1 network it adds up. The high subsides price on other carriers adds up make up any difference the BOGO would of supply for the limited time it was ran.