Apple's Share of Cellphone Industry Profit Estimated at 32% for First Half of 2009

[farmboy]

This news should please NO ONE but Apple's shareholders. I can't believe so many of you are viewing it as a positive.

Remember - Apple might have a big share of the profit of the market (why don't any of the articles state which country or countries this research relates to?) but that doesn't mean they have a big market share - in fact it's anything but that.

And I can't believe you think this is a negative.

And you'll enlighten us as to why Apple needs a big market share? Market share means nothing except to analysts and (apparently) you. Businesses are in business to make a profit, not to achieve market share. They make a nice product and sell every unit they make to customers who, by their purchasing decisions, tell Apple that the product is desirable and available at an acceptable price. This allows Apple to make more and better products, which the customers want. Why is this negative?

 

[farmboy]

Interesting questions from

Law PDF/Tests for a Monopoly

Performance
_______________________

• How does the firm's actual performance
deviate from the competitive norm?

– How much does price depart from marginal
cost?

– How much does its profit margin exceed that of
a comparable competitive industry?​

Three strikes, Apple !

Incomplete and inaccurate, from a legal standpoint. Not everything posted on the internet...oh, nevermind.

 

[wolfshades]

I don't know if you are being sarcastic. But alot of people forget basic economics. It seems that some people don't understand anything about the market. Should Apple only ask the price it costed them to develope and manufacture the phone or what it is worth? Appearantly the general consumer finds it a good deal to shell out the money have in return for this phone. Nobody is over paying unless you regret buying the iPhone. But people knew how much it was going to cost them and what they would get in return. For a painting the painter isn't going to seat as price the amount he used to paint the painting. Rather he looks whether he can sell it for a certain price. If he can't sell it for the set price then he must conclude that the painting is not worth the set price and appearantly the offer is greater than the need. Thus the prices will go down. Product prices are always in balans within their market or it will flop. I'm not angenious in economics but even I can grasp this little bit of truth.

I was being heavily sarcastic.

This whole news item is ridiculous, really. Really, what's the point about talking about market share, unless you're an investor? Is it to drag out all of those "moral" people who are all-fired up about a company making "too much profit"? If so, its the equivalent of a troll. People who think there should be limits on profit are ridiculous and predictable. You know from the get-go what they're going to say, so what's the point?

The market is working the way it's supposed to work. That's all I need to know. Apple - and everyone else - will sell their products, and limit their prices only according to what the consumer will pay. Does anyone want to change that dynamic?

If so, take a trip to North Korea and live in an economically "moral" universe.

 

[Thunderhawks]

All Things Digital reports on research from analyst Toni Sacconaghi of Bernstein Research that shows Apple holding 32% of the cellphone handset industry's operating profits for the first half of 2009. Apple's profit share is driven by high average selling prices and high margins on the iPhone, which accounts for only 8% of industry revenue and under 2% of industry unit sales.The study follows on the heels of earlier estimates for all of 2008 from Deutsche Bank analyst Brian Modoff showing that Apple claimed 20% of the handset industry's profits. That earlier study had also estimated that Apple and Research in Motion's combined share of industry revenue would rise to 58% in 2009 from 35% in 2008, numbers which bear close resemblance to the first-half 2009 data released by Sacconaghi estimating the combined companies' share of profits at 54% (Apple 32%, Research in Motion 22%).

Article Link: Apple's Share of Cellphone Industry Profit Estimated at 32% for First Half of 2009

Wow, what a surprise a company is in a business to make money and delivers hit after hit (at least for now)

Let's also be upset that everybody was forced to buy an iphone at gunpoint.

I could barely escape an iphone bandit yesterday.

After that info..........I guess it's sleepless nights from now on

 

[nkawtg72]

I was being heavily sarcastic.

This whole news item is ridiculous, really. Really, what's the point about talking about market share, unless you're an investor? Is it to drag out all of those "moral" people who are all-fired up about a company making "too much profit"? If so, its the equivalent of a troll. People who think there should be limits on profit are ridiculous and predictable. You know from the get-go what they're going to say, so what's the point?

The market is working the way it's supposed to work. That's all I need to know. Apple - and everyone else - will sell their products, and limit their prices only according to what the consumer will pay. Does anyone want to change that dynamic?

If so, take a trip to North Korea and live in an economically "moral" universe.

you got that right. the second i saw this thread, i told myself "i wonder how many posts itll take before someone is talking about no market share or insane profits."

when i opened the thread, i found that the first poster did that all within the span of the first 4 posts.

i'm surprised with apple sitting on $32 billion in cash, that no one is suggesting they include a $100 check in the box of each product they sell.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Fail. "Influence" without market share does not fall within the legal definition of monolopy. Apple's market presense has consistantly added to the competetive landscape, not subtracted from it. That's what antitrust law is meant to encourage, not discourage.

Collusion can be a wonderful thing. All monopolies start small. Oh and me a PC fan boy? Don't even own one. Been a Mac User for 20 years. Like many of the long time Mac users I know, we see Apple sliding down a slippery slope. A lot of the more vocal fanboys here are newer iPod Era users so they have no clue what the original culture of Apple is and was.

 

[autrefois]

it's using terms like "obscene profits" that alerts me to the fact that we'll never agree. the words "obscene" and "profits", when used together like that are for all practical purposes NOT in my vocabulary.

business exists to make money. period.

If you're familiar with economic history, you'll know that corporations (of which Apple is an example) were originally created to serve the public good, not to make as much money as they can. I'm fine with them trying to make a buck. It's when people say that corporations have the right to make as much money as they want off of people that I object.

can you educate me, and define the EXACT dollar figure at which point a "profit" transitions from normal to obscene?

Obviously, given different markets, and fluctuating conditions within each market, there would be no way to say exactly when profits are excessive. I admit that "obscene profits" is a subjective term. You and others subjectively believe the profits are not excessive, and that is your right.

Did anyone force a gun to peoples head forcing them to buy the iPhone? I think not! I choose not to buy, to me it's just a damn phone. But, people made their own choices and knew the costs, so I would say the market place worked just fine! Your argument that Apple is fleecing people is therefor FLAWED!

Apple is not forcing anyone to buy their phone. Who said they were? Even if they were, that wouldn't be fleecing. Charging AT&T and other carriers as much as they apparently do for the phones (which is then passed on to us, the consumer) and getting that much profit out of it is what I have an issue with. If Apple is getting that much profit off their phones compared to their competitors, then consumers are indirectly paying for this huge profit. This is what I considered fleecing.

Apple is a multinational company, they employ enough people in America, or should all their jobs be in America. There is nothing wrong with them having workers outside the country or outsourcing to other companies outside of America.

I was objecting to the idea that Apple making a little less profit (when it's making so much more than its competitors) would mean they'd have to cut jobs in the US. I agree that Apple should be able to employ people in as many countries as they want, so long as they pay them a living wage in those countries and let them work in humane conditions. I don't think Apple is employing workers in China because they love the Chinese people. They do it because it's cheaper and there are fewer labor laws than if they employed similarly-skilled workers in other countries.

Some would say this is fine to do because all that matters is making money. They have the right to their opinion. I have the right to say that I think some things are more important than money. I'm sure if Apple made a lot of money making what these people felt were inferior products (see: Microsoft), then many of these same people would agree that profit is not all that matters.

 

[nkawtg72]

Collusion can be a wonderful thing. All monopolies start small. Oh and me a PC fan boy? Don't even own one. Been a Mac User for 20 years. Like many of the long time Mac users I know, we see Apple sliding down a slippery slope. A lot of the more vocal fanboys here are newer iPod Era users so they have no clue what the original culture of Apple is and was.

i have a hard time believing this. ive got just as many years as an apple user under my belt (25 to be exact), and i certainly know what the original culture was all about.

-proprietary connectors
-proprietary protocols
-unique mechanicals that prevented owners from pulling off the shelf parts to repair or upgrade
-closed architecture

and the list goes on. on the other hand, apple is practically a polar opposite to this mentality now. their OS is even now open.

not only has apple adopted many industry standards but has also been a leader in developing them through their own R&D.

to sum it up, apple is now a culture of industry standards and openness. how on earth can you call that a slippery slope?

oh wait, i forgot, you already told us. they're making too much money.

 

[nkawtg72]

If you're familiar with economic history, you'll know that corporations (of which Apple is an example) were originally created to serve the public good, not to make as much money as they can. I'm fine with them trying to make a buck. It's when people say that corporations have the right to make as much money as they want off of people that I object.

Obviously, given different markets, and fluctuating conditions within each market, there would be no way to say exactly when profits are excessive. I admit that "obscene profits" is a subjective term. You and others subjectively believe the profits are not excessive, and that is your right.

Apple is not forcing anyone to buy their phone. Who said they were? Even if they were, that wouldn't be fleecing. Charging AT&T and other carriers as much as they apparently do for the phones (which is then passed on to us, the consumer) and getting that much profit out of it is what I have an issue with. If Apple is getting that much profit off their phones compared to their competitors, then consumers are indirectly paying for this huge profit. This is what I considered fleecing.

I was objecting to the idea that Apple making a little less profit (when it's making so much more than its competitors) would mean they'd have to cut jobs in the US. I agree that Apple should be able to employ people in as many countries as they want, so long as they pay them a living wage in those countries and let them work in humane conditions. I don't think Apple is employing workers in China because they love the Chinese people. They do it because it's cheaper and there are fewer labor laws than if they employed similarly-skilled workers in other countries.

Some would say this is fine to do because all that matters is making money. They have the right to their opinion. I have the right to say that I think some things are more important than money. I'm sure if Apple made a lot of money making what these people felt were inferior products (see: Microsoft), then many of these same people would agree that profit is not all that matters.

first, can you explain to me where it was ever said that business's original purpose was to serve the public good? in addition to that, even if that were so, how are high profits a threat to the public good? i'm sure all the apple employees out there are certainly grateful that theyve not been fired from a technology company during this economic downturn we are experiencing. you think that may have anything to do with apple sitting on $32 billion in cash? how did they "horde" that much cash in as little as 7 or 8 year? through profits!!!!

apple isn't making any more many in revenue "behind the scenes" as anyone else selling smartphones. ive seen crackberries that go for as much as $700-800 without subsidy and $199 with it. apple isnt doing anything deceptive or new with this type of distribution model that wasnt part of the cell industry before they came onto scene.

i believe there are plenty of things more important than money too. but thats not what is at topic here. what is at topic is that apple has large profit on a product and a discussion as to whether they have a right to make a profit on their products and just how much profit should "they be allowed to have."

as for a company making large profits and treating its employees poorly, i certainly don't condone that kind of behavior either. so if theres some information you can share on how apple is violating human rights in the manufacture of its products, id be glad to hear it.

--------------------
edit:

i encourage you to read this website. it may be enlightening for you.

http://www.historyofbusiness.net/

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

i have a hard time believing this. ive got just as many years as an apple user under my belt (25 to be exact), and i certainly know what the original culture was all about.

-proprietary connectors
-proprietary protocols
-unique mechanicals that prevented owners from pulling off the shelf parts to repair or upgrade
-closed architecture

and the list goes on. on the other hand, apple is practically a polar opposite to this mentality now. their OS is even now open.

not only has apple adopted many industry standards but has also been a leader in developing them through their own R&D.

to sum it up, apple is now a culture of industry standards and openness. how on earth can you call that a slippery slope?

oh wait, i forgot, you already told us. they're making too much money.

Its not about making money its about business practices surrounding it and all of you who bash Microsoft then praise Apple. Apple is the new Microsoft sorry to tell you that.

 

[nkawtg72]

taken from Wikipedia: (i think that last sentence is the holy grail in this discussion)

A business (also called a company or an enterprise) is a legally recognized organization designed to provide goods and/or services to consumers.[1] Businesses are predominant in capitalist economies, most being privately owned and formed to earn profit that will increase the wealth of its owners and grow the business itself. The owners and operators of a business have as one of their main objectives the receipt or generation of a financial return in exchange for work and acceptance of risk. Notable exceptions include cooperative enterprises and state-owned enterprises. Socialist systems involve either government agencies, public ownership, state-ownership or direct worker ownership of enterprises and assets that would be run as businesses in a capitalist economy. The distinction between these institutions and a business is that socialist institutions often have alternative or additional goals aside from maximizing or turning a profit.

 

[nkawtg72]

Its not about making money its about business practices surrounding it and all of you who bash Microsoft then praise Apple. Apple is the new Microsoft sorry to tell you that.

where in this discussion have i bashed microsoft?

just because i dont like their products, doesnt mean i think they havent earned the money they made, or deserve it.

 

[mags631]

Its not about making money its about business practices surrounding it and all of you who bash Microsoft then praise Apple. Apple is the new Microsoft sorry to tell you that.

So the purpose of a business is to practice business? Seems circular, but in any event, your final comment leads me to believe that your argument is emotionally based.

 

[autrefois]

first, can you explain to me where it was ever said that business's original purpose was to serve the public good?

I never said that the original purpose of business was to serve the public good. Business ≠ corporation. Apple is a corporation. It too can make money, off of the iPhone or any of its other products, but I was saying that that should not be a corporation's only purpose. Even Apple agrees since they brag about being "green" and limiting their environmental impact.

I said that corporations, in American history at least, were originally formed and allowed if they served the public good. Charters, issued by states, could be (and sometimes were) revoked if it turns out they were not.

i encourage you to read this website. it may be enlightening for you.

http://www.historyofbusiness.net/

I looked at it, and it does not counter anything I said previously or now. It says "When corporate business came to the newly born United States of America, shortly after their break from England, the corporation was looked on with suspicion and mistrust. Although economically it seemed like a safe bet for profit, it was clear that those profits would be limited to a few powerful people, who would then hold immense sway over large chunks of the industry. The founding fathers were wary of such power, and so allowed corporations to flourish in the United States only under a very strict set of guidelines concerning what they could sell, how much, and to whom."

What your site does not mention is that the "strict set of guidelines" generally included provisions saying that corporate charters could be revoked by states if the corporations were deemed to not be serving the public good.

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html

"The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm. [...]"

Our two sites differ over whether loosening these regulations was a good idea or not.

I'm not saying Apple doesn't have a right to make money! I don't think anyone in this thread believes that. Some people seem to think that if you don't support a corporation in everything it does, that it means you hate business. I love business. I love Apple. I think Apple, like all corporations, should still serve some purpose besides making money.

 

[cnorth3]

Its not about making money its about business practices surrounding it and all of you who bash Microsoft then praise Apple. Apple is the new Microsoft sorry to tell you that.

Not even nearly. Microsoft (illegally) used its market power to force vendors to use its OS. Other than making products that people want to buy, what exactly has Apple done that offends you so much? BTW, my first computer was an Apple II, so I too have a reasonable long view of Apple as a company.

 

[nkawtg72]

I never said that the original purpose of business was to serve the public good. Business ≠ corporation. Apple is a corporation. It too can make money, off of the iPhone or any of its other products, but I was saying that that should not be a corporation's only purpose. Even Apple agrees since they brag about being "green" and limiting their environmental impact.

I said that corporations, in American history at least, were originally formed and allowed if they served the public good. Charters, issued by states, could be (and sometimes were) revoked if it turns out they were not.



I looked at it, and it does not counter anything I said previously or now. It says "When corporate business came to the newly born United States of America, shortly after their break from England, the corporation was looked on with suspicion and mistrust. Although economically it seemed like a safe bet for profit, it was clear that those profits would be limited to a few powerful people, who would then hold immense sway over large chunks of the industry. The founding fathers were wary of such power, and so allowed corporations to flourish in the United States only under a very strict set of guidelines concerning what they could sell, how much, and to whom."

What your site does not mention is that the "strict set of guidelines" generally included provisions saying that corporate charters could be revoked by states if the corporations were deemed to not be serving the public good.

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html

"The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm. [...]"

Our two sites differ over whether loosening these regulations was a good idea or not.

I'm not saying Apple doesn't have a right to make money! I don't think anyone in this thread believes that. Some people seem to think that if you don't support a corporation in everything it does, that it means you hate business. I love business. I love Apple. I think Apple, like all corporations, should still serve some purpose besides making money.

i'm not going to bother reading all that junk you wrote. and i'll tell you why. i despise people who backpedal. and you sir(maam) have backpedaled.

you DID in fact say word for word that the origin of CORPORATIONS was for the public good. a corporation is a business, and as a matter of fact the definition of a Corporation is a legally recognized FOR PROFIT business.

now you want to say that you never said that.

good day


------edit:
i did mistakenly leave off this part of the definition of a corporation...
.....limited liability entity that has a separate legal personality from its members

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

where in this discussion have i bashed microsoft?

just because i dont like their products, doesnt mean i think they havent earned the money they made, or deserve it.

But Apple has? Apple buys others ideas and markets it as their own just like everyone else. My whole point is people think Apple as a company is so much better and different. They aren't. They are just as evil as everyone else. They just make amazing products.

And no you didn't bash MS it was more a generalization.

 

[nkawtg72]

But Apple has? Apple buys others ideas and markets it as their own just like everyone else. My whole point is people think Apple as a company is so much better and different. They aren't. They are just as evil as everyone else. They just make amazing products.

And no you didn't bash MS it was more a generalization.

you obviously have some deeply rooted personal hatred for Apple. you call them evil, and talk as if everything they do is immoral, unethical, unamerican, and un-Mattie-Num-Nums. that must be a pretty depressing world you live in.

 

[Eidorian]

you obviously have some deeply rooted personal hatred for Apple. you call them evil, and talk as if everything they do is immoral, unethical, unamerican, and un-Mattie-Num-Nums. that must be a pretty depressing world you live in.

I'd check Mattie Num Nums signature first...

 

[LagunaSol]

and un-Mattie-Num-Nums

LOL!

Sorry, there's just something hilarious about the phrase "un-Mattie-Num-Nums" that shot root beer from my oral cavity into the nasal one.

 

[LagunaSol]

you obviously have some deeply rooted personal hatred for Apple. you call them evil, and talk as if everything they do is immoral, unethical, unamerican, and un-Mattie-Num-Nums

Some people simply live by the philosophy that business is evil - period. End of story. If you are selling a product, you must be a Nazi bent on the destruction of the human race.

Sometimes we call these deluded souls hippies; sometimes we call them communists. I just call them naive fools.

I'm just glad they aren't running the show or we'd all be wearing matching burlap sacks and tapping out our emails with a stylus on a Windows Mobile device via Hotmail.

 

[Eidorian]

LOL!

Sorry, there's just something hilarious about the phrase "un-Mattie-Num-Nums" that shot root beer from my oral cavity into the nasal one.

Thankfully I didn't have anything in my mouth when it happened to me.

 

[megfilmworks]

Most of us knew this day was coming.
When the big elephant stepped into an directionless industry,
the handwriting was on the wall.

No one can compete head to head with Apple.
They just don't have the vision, personnel or capital.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

you obviously have some deeply rooted personal hatred for Apple. you call them evil, and talk as if everything they do is immoral, unethical, unamerican, and un-Mattie-Num-Nums. that must be a pretty depressing world you live in.

No hatred without them I would have a career. I am just not running around acting like everyone but Apple is evil.

 

[LagunaSol]

No one can compete head to head with Apple.
They just don't have the vision, personnel or capital.

Never underestimate Microsoft's ability to (poorly) copy a competitor's product and ram it into the leader's spot by sheer brute force.

The Zune Phone is being schemed even as we speak.