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

[Goona]

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.

I bet it's blocking Google voice from the app store. Anyone comparing Microsoft to Apple is being delusional. Apple has no way the influence that Microsoft has, they practically control other companies. For example if Microsoft were to stop supplying Windows to Dell, Dell would be gone by tomorrow which is why Microsoft was declared a monopoly, Apple doesn't have this level of influence. I also don't have a problem with Microsoft, they like Apple are out there to make money, nothing wrong with that.

 

[twoodcc]

i think this is more proof that apple knows what it's doing, and they are doing a good job so far.

 

[farmboy]

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'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.

So creating and selling something that did not exist before, which the public apparently wants to buy in quite large numbers (Those FOOLS! Can't they see they're being duped by the Man?), employing lots of people around the world and paying lots of taxes around the world which directly support a broad range of societal functions, is NOT a legitimate purpose in and of itself?

 

[deconstruct60]

I think most people are smart enough when presented with a contract stating they have to pay 80 dollars a month or whatever they have to pay. Nobody is forcing them to signing anything.

You are missing the point. People pay for the wireless service because that is what it is priced. However, there are no "without the subsidy tax" wireless service plans you buy with a phone. ( You can try pay-go but those are different rates).

You don't have to go any further than these boards when a new Pre , iPhone, Blackberry high end gaget hits the market and there are rash of folks who think AT&T , Sprint, Verizon is ripping them off because to get the new phone the price is much higher than folks coming in with a new plan from scratch. They are not demonstrating awareness of the need to pay off the phone they already had. The already "paid" for that phone so the carriers are rip offs.

Yes. Many folks do know they are paying for the phone over time. Many others don't. The increase in market share is that second category who move on the lower the barrier to entry.

Apple entered the smartphone market say they were going to change the way business was done. They were going to charge sky high up front costs (but also double dip snagging monthly fees ). However, to hit their 10 million number they had to lower that barrier cost (in addition to going more global).

Nobody put a gun to many of the folks who took out voodoo ARM mortgages. Many of them had little clue what they were doing. Buying something and having a clue to what the total lifecycle costs are two different things for a sizable number of folks. Just look at all the press reports quoting the largely bogus 32% number associated with the story that spawned this thread.

 

[i.mac]

Does that mean we are over paying for the iPhone???

Easy... Sell your iPhone and purchase a Nokia.

 

[arjaosx]

Seems they don't want to lower margins to fit the economy as they know hype is driving the product.
Money hungry... Wonder if it will backfire.

No, that is not fair to say that Apple is money hungry for its huge share of profits despite the relatively smaller marketshare. You have said it yourself, the hype is carrying the product, but if the product is not that good the hype fades and sales drop but the iPhone still sells so it must mean that they have made a good product.

Credit Apple for creating a product that people will want and pay huge sums for. Shame on the other manufacturers who just bring out products with the aim of selling more.

Come to think of it, its the other manufacturers who are getting greedy. They are putting out product you don't really want but you need to buy while Apple makes you buy and stuff you sure can be happy about.

 

[arjaosx]

Does that mean we are over paying for the iPhone???

Nope, for its price I got a GPS to use to find my way, a phone, a mobile e-mail client, I am able to browse the web anywhere, do instant messaging and there will be more. I know other phones can do that as well but with the ease I am doing it now, it cannot be compared...no its not overpriced. High margin but not overpriced.

 

[nkawtg72]

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

sorry, i didn't realize that a person's signature on here was a fingerprint of a person's true stance on a subject.

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

maybe it's time you stop with the over the top generalizations. you were the same person that just a few posts ago said "all of you bash microsoft...." when i called you out on it and asked where have i been bashing ms, you said you were just generalizing.

now youre accusing me of calling everyone BUT apple evil. again i ask, where have i said that?!

better yet, don't answer that. it doesnt matter. your opinion is of no value to me anymore because you speak in exaggerations that couldnt possibly be cemented in logic.

 

[Eidorian]

sorry, i didn't realize that a person's signature on here was a fingerprint of a person's true stance on a subject.

You know someone when you've been around them long enough and know their occupation. Not to mention the fact they display it in their signature.

 

[nkawtg72]

You know someone when you've been around them long enough and know their occupation. Not to mention the fact they display it in their signature.

still not sure what that has to do with anything.

num-nums is the one who called apple evil, and also has done nothing but criticize and bash apple and its business practices, and principles, in every post in this thread.

 

[sushi]

It's only exclusive in three countries. The USA, the UK & Germany.

And in Japan with SoftBank.

Personally, I like seeing companies make profits. It gives them reason to pursue new ideas and products along those lines that are successful.

 

[AidenShaw]

num-nums is the one who called apple evil, and also has done nothing but criticize and bash apple and its business practices, and principles, in every post in this thread.

She only said that Apple was no less evil than other corporations, in spite of what the fanbois think about Apple.

Corporations exist to drain your bank account, every one of them. That's evil to some. Apple is evil, Starbucks is evil, Nike is evil - they're all evil in that regard.

Some people here just go ballistic at the slightest criticism of Apple - without thinking the whole context through.

 

[DMann]

She only said that Apple was no less evil than other corporations, in spite of what the fanbois think about Apple.

Corporations exist to drain your bank account, every one of them. That's evil to some. Apple is evil, Starbucks is evil, Nike is evil - they're all evil in that regard.

Some people here just go ballistic at the slightest criticism of Apple - without thinking the whole context through.

Yes, once again folks, the Pot calls the Kettle Black:

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 !

When one's own arrogance is thwarted, ironically, by one's own baseless, self-indulgent, paranoid, and "grasping at straws" style attempts at whistle-blowing and accusations, who's credibility is only further undermined by the posting of a dead link, failing to validate it first, and after it is brought to his attention, failing to make an attempt to amend it, it all becomes increasingly apparent that his primary intent here is that of comedy, lame at best.

 

[AidenShaw]

Yes, once again folks...

Yes, once again folks, DMann has nothing but personal insults to add to the discussion.

Move along, nothing to see here.

 

[LagunaSol]

Yes, once again folks, DMann has nothing but personal insults to add to the discussion.

Move along, nothing to see here.

You forgot to mention Dell or Microsoft in your post, Aiden. No nickel for you...

 

[AidenShaw]

You forgot to mention Dell or Microsoft in your post, Aiden. No nickel for you...

When DMann has nothing relevant to the topic, and no argument to refute my points, and is only able to stoop to personal insults - I don't need a nickel. No loss.

Only the desperate rely on ad hominem attacks.

 

[DMann]

When DMann has nothing relevant to the topic, and no argument to refute my points, and is only able to stoop to personal insults - I don't need a nickel. No loss.

Only the desperate rely on ad hominem attacks.

Direct observations of hypocrisy are hardly insults - your points, if you want to call them points, have been consistently refuted, thank you. The mindless ranting, insults and sarcasm you have directed to many posters on this board, however, impart little to be desired - no loss indeed.

 

[Evangelion]

In the markets where phones are paid for incrementally the cost of the iPhone is partially hidden from the consumer.

'
Uh-huh? Are you saying that people can't do basic math? That when they are told that "you pay X bucks upfront, and the Y bucks a month for Z months" they get utterly confused?

To say that folks would pay at full price. LOL. No way. If many folks had to explicitly confront what they are paying for the phone many would not buy it.

And if they were buying those other hi-end phones with no subsidy, many would not buy them either. So what's your point? iPhone costs about as much as hi-end phones from other manufacturers cost, there is no real difference in price.

Are you basically claiming that only iPhone has subsidies? Or that other phones have subsidies as well, but only with the iPhone they are somehow "confusing"?

 

[Evangelion]

Yes, once again folks, DMann has nothing but personal insults to add to the discussion.

Move along, nothing to see here.

yet the fact remains that you are, and were utterly, 100% wrong. Why don't you admit that? Claiming that Apple is a monopoly is downright stupid. What's more stupid is not to admit to being wrong, but instead whine about "personal insults" when you are called out for your mistake.

 

[tetravus]

More Americans don't understand Capitalism - Shocking

I find it quite hard to believe that more and more Americans think corporations serve other purposes other than to make money. That is so untrue. A corporation exists mainly to profit it's shareholders; therefore, the more profits, the better. How can that be difficult to understand? As for overpricing, it's all about value. If a consumer buys a product willingly, then it IS the correct price. If the price is so high that the product doesn't sell, then that is overpricing because the product is selling at a price the consumer is unwilling to pay for.

It's sad that I have to explain how capitalism works to a mostly American forum because most countries in my region are essentially socialist, complete with state owned companies that were created for the "public good". It's strange for some to suggest that Apple should behave like a socialist institution.

 

[Evangelion]

Collusion can be a wonderful thing.

With whom is Apple "colluding" with?

All monopolies start small.

No they don't. Company with small market-share is not a monopoly. By the time you become a monopoly, you are big.

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.

Uh-huh. Besides that fact that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, whereas Apple has never had a monopoly in any of the markets they operate in?

Or could you open your argument a bit? How exactly is Apple "the new Microsoft"? And who exactly has been claiming that "everyone but Apple is evil!".

MODS: I know, I have three posts in a row, sorry

 

[Evangelion]

I find it quite hard to believe that more and more Americans think corporations serve other purposes other than to make money. That is so untrue. A corporation exists mainly to profit it's shareholders; therefore, the more profits, the better.

I find the above comment quote sad. There's more to life than profits, and society as a whole should not revolve around profits. Corporations are part of bigger society, and of those corporations through their action cause harm to the society, they should be removed from that society.

The pursuit of profit is a form of greed, and greed is what gave us the current economic crisis. So am I some commie who opposes profits? No. That greed can be positive, or it can be negative. It can be constructive, or it can be destructive.

So what about Apple? Well, I don't think that their profits are destructive to the larger society. But there are cases where the pursuit of profit has harmed society. Like the banks. Or patent-trolls. Hey, they are just out to earn a quick buck, so no harm done, right?

 

[tetravus]

I find the above comment quote sad. There's more to life than profits, and society as a whole should not revolve around profits. Corporations are part of bigger society, and of those corporations through their action cause harm to the society, they should be removed from that society.

Let me put it this way. A corporation's primary objective is still profits. Their behavior, however, influences consumer decisions when buying a product too. You would think that socialist countries would be better off than capitalist countries because of widespread policies and infrastructure for the "public good". But that is not the case; because a responsible company image also has monetary value, and is also a factor considered in consumer purchases.

One example is that an environmentally conscious consumer is more likely to buy a computer from a company with a recycling program than one who doesn't. Since being environmentally responsible translated into additional sales, one could argue that the company's perceived social responsibility is not genuinely rooted in "public good"; but is a move to burnish the company's image in order to generate more sales...and improve profitablity.

I'm not saying that corporations do not have social responsibilities. It's just that the "goodness" will only materialize if it helps the company sell more product. I'm simply making a point that in a corporate setting, any move that doesn't translate into more sales will not prosper, however noble that cause may be. As I hope you realize by now, even good will has a monetary value.

 

[Evangelion]

You would think that socialist countries would be better off than capitalist countries because of widespread policies and infrastructure for the "public good". But that is not the case; because a responsible company image also has monetary value, and is also a factor considered in consumer purchases.

There are plenty of countries that are more "socialistic" that USA is, and those countries are doing just fine. Like Nordic countries for example. To simply claim that "more socialism = bad" is quite wrong.

My American co-worker complains about Finnish taxes. But when he had a child, he was pleasantly surprised when he didn't have to pay through the nose for the delivery, and because he got several weeks of paid paternity-leave. He will also get free education and inexpensive daycare. And not to mention longer vacations in general (I'm actually shocked to see that it's quite common for Americans to have no vacation at all, besides holidays and weekends). when you add all that up, I bet the actual expenses are quite similar between Finland and USA.

One example is that an environmentally conscious consumer is more likely to buy a computer from a company with a recycling program than one who doesn't.

But even capitalistic countries like USA has regulations regarding pollution and toxic materials. They do not leave things like that on consumer choice. Reason being that many people simply do not care. Or plenty of people do care, but the few that do not, ruin it for everyone else.

I'm simply making a point that in a corporate setting, any move that doesn't translate into more sales will not prosper, however noble that cause may be.

Maybe sometimes they should survive, for the sole reason that they are noble? Should everything be measured in dollars and euros?

 

[amammad]

When DMann has nothing relevant to the topic, and no argument to refute my points, and is only able to stoop to personal insults - I don't need a nickel. No loss.

Only the desperate rely on ad hominem attacks.

Aiden my dear... most of the planet would want to insult you after reading your arrogant diatribes on here.

You're quite possibly the most antagonistic person on here - and that includes the 12 year old newbie trolls.