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

[autrefois]

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.

I did not backpedal, as I'm sure anyone who read my posts, and your replies, realizes. A corporation is only one type of business.

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?

I never said Apple didn't serve any legitimate purpose. I never said customers were being duped into buying iPhones. Why do people feel the need to ignore, distort, or make things up?

Despite Apple (indirectly) charging too much for the phone, and despite the fact that people seem to want to defend Apple's huge profits, I still love my iPhone and Apple anyway.

 

[AidenShaw]

Not deliberate enough.

Ballmer mole?

That's more like it!

Have you considered that I might really be working for Arn, tossing out "devil's advocate" posts to get page hits?

Think about it....

I point out that high profit margins are one of the many signs of a monopoly - and a bunch of you react like someone's dumped a big bucket of fish scraps into a school of sharks.

Page-hit - cha-ching! Page-hit - cha-ching! Page-hit - cha-ching cha-ching!

No! Don't eat Aiden!

 

[AidenShaw]

To be clear, my claim that you are a troll is not intended as an insult.

Wasn't taken as such. You're not the one with a history of abusive, personal insults in your posts.

 

[mags631]

Have you considered that I might really be working for Arn, tossing out "devil's advocate" posts to get page hits?

Think about it....

Does it matter? It doesn't justify your behavior; it would only implicate others as well.

You still have yet to directly address the claim that you are purposefully trolling. That leads me to believe that is what you are doing.

 

[AidenShaw]

You still have yet to directly address the claim that you are purposefully trolling. That leads me to believe that is what you are doing.

These wouldn't be "discussion" boards if people didn't post their opinions for the discussions.

Many of my posts are attempts to enlighten (see this very recent post) or correct misinformation. Not sure why a "troll" would do that.

I also try to avoid the long tit-for-tat exchanges, except in cases where objective facts rather than subjective opinions are being discussed.

For example, I didn't debate your claim in #162 that "This post [#161] has nothing to do with your original posts and assertions made here". I'd think that most people would see the relevance of connecting a discussion of Apple, monopolies and Iphones in this thread with a discussion of Apple, monopolies and Iphones in another thread. For us to have a half dozen posts of "yes it is"/"no it isn't" would have no value.

You implied that it was "picking a fight", whereas I thought that it was broadening the context of the debate in this thread.

 

[Evangelion]

Please point out the statements that are even 50% wrong, and I'll say that I was wrong.

You claimed that Apple is a monopoly.

Also, if you can find anyplace where I stated that the Iphone was a monopoly, post the link.

What the hell was that "three trikes"-crap then about?

I said that it was "interesting" that this profit report matches several of the indicators in a big deck of slides describing monopolies.

Backpedaling at the speed of light! You posted drivel, and when people called you out for it, you start to backpedal and whine about "personal attacks". Why don't you grow a pair and quit your whining?

One can be sure, however, that the FCC folks who are investigating Apple/AT&T and the exclusivity agreements have seen this report.

FCC investigation has nothing to do with Apple being a "monopoly".

 

[Evangelion]

Every time I point out the fact that iPhones are crazy expensive, there always seems to be people who immediately come to their defense, making statements like they cost the same as the average Smartphone, or other silly comments about how other things are overpriced (that have nothing to do with the iPhone).

iPhone is an hi-end phone, so it carries a price to match. I can easily compare the price of the iPhone to other hi-end phones. for example, if I wanted to get an iPhone, I could buy 32GB 3GS for 528e. Or I could buy Nokia N97 for 625e. So it seems that the Nokia actually costs more.

Or is the iPhone "crazy expensive" because you are comapring it to some crap-phone that needs to be given away, because it's so crappy?

Someone who has used other phones, other plans/providers, or has only been using a regular (non "smart") cell phone can see the prices are artificially high.

OMG, you just uncovered the scoop of the year: smartphones cost more than normal phones do! Stop the press!

And when something is posted showing that Apple is making insane profit on the iPhone (not just revenue, but profit above and beyond their costs), it just backs up the argument that they are overpriced.

Since they are selling like hotcakes, they can't be overpriced. If people were unwilling to pay the price that is being asked for the device and shelves were full of unsold iPhone, THEN it would be overpriced. But people are accepting the price and buying lots of iPhone, then how exactly can it be "overpriced"?

Your comments are seriously lacking.

 

[syke76]

Being a former Motorolan, it's really sad seeing comments associating Motorola as crap. But what really makes me livid are former colleagues getting axed.

So yes, Apple is doing something right. So why should they be blamed for making a profit? No profit, no jobs.

Besides I wouldn't want to be caught buying a Motorola phone.
Fortunately, I used to get them for free. If I have to buy a phone, it is only an iPhone.

 

[AidenShaw]

You claimed that Apple is a monopoly. What the hell was that "three trikes"-crap then about?

You jumped to that conclusion, but all I said was that three characteristics of this profit report matched some indicators for a monopoly - according to a slideshow that I gave the link to.

...whine about "personal attacks". Why don't you grow a pair and quit your whining?

When posts discuss the topics rather than attack other posters, I'll stop.

FCC investigation has nothing to do with Apple being a "monopoly".

The FCC is investigating exclusivity arrangements. This report about the huge profits from one such arrangement is germane to the FCC's investigation, since high profit margins might not be in the consumer's best interest.

 

[Journojulz]

10 You earn a high profit margin by making a product people are willing to pay more for.

20 To make a product people are willing to pay more for, you need to spend more money making your product.

30 To spend more money on making a producty better - you need to sell your product with a high profit margin.

40 goto 10

---------

Happy to pay for mac products because i know i am paying the wages of the people developing toys i won't get to see for another 3 years.

 

[AidenShaw]

30 To spend more money on making a producty better - you need to sell your product with a high profit margin.

Research and development costs are factored into into the costs of making a product - so the profit margin already reflects those costs.

 

[Journojulz]

yes, but my point was the R&D for the NEXT gen of apple products aren't.

 

[Evangelion]

You jumped to that conclusion, but all I said was that three characteristics of this profit report matched some indicators for a monopoly - according to a slideshow that I gave the link to.

You basically called them a monopoly. Everybody can see that. And now that the stupidity of your comment has been called out, you backpedal as fast as you can. "I never said that they were a monopoly!". Bullcrap. Everything in your message said that you think that Apple is a monopoly. It might be that you didn't spell that out, so you could have a backdoor from which you could backpedal and claim that you never called them a monopoly. But it's still obvious from your message. Trying to now claim that "I never called them a monopoly!" is intellectual dishonesty and shenanigans. What next? "I never tried marihuana! Yes, there are pictures of me smoking a joint, but I never inhaled".

When posts discuss the topics rather than attack other posters, I'll stop.

Why don't you stop right now? Everyone is already fed up with your constant whining. And no, you weren't "personally attacked". Just because the stupidity of your comments is called out, does not mean that you as a person is being attacked. You just started whining because you have no means of winning the argument about the subject at hand, so you start saying "If you attack me, I will not continue this discussion!", so you could then pretened to "win" the argument because "my opponent resorted to personal attacks". Bull.... crap!

The FCC is investigating exclusivity arrangements. This report about the huge profits from one such arrangement is germane to the FCC's investigation, since high profit margins might not be in the consumer's best interest.

High profit-margins combined with monopoly is a bad thing. But Apple is not a monopoly, and neither is AT&T. High profit-margins are usually a sign of a good product that people actually want to buy. If you want to see monopoly with high profit-margin, take a look at Windows.

If consumers feel that they are being "harmed" here, they can always buy some other phone from HTC, Nokia, Samsung, Palm, RIM....

 

[AidenShaw]

Quote:

The FCC is investigating exclusivity arrangements. This report about the huge profits from one such arrangement is germane to the FCC's investigation, since high profit margins might not be in the consumer's best interest.

High profit-margins combined with monopoly is a bad thing. But Apple is not a monopoly, and neither is AT&T. High profit-margins are usually a sign of a good product that people actually want to buy. If you want to see monopoly with high profit-margin, take a look at Windows.

If consumers feel that they are being "harmed" here, they can always buy some other phone from HTC, Nokia, Samsung, Palm, RIM....

Why do you keep mentioning monopoly? The FCC investigation isn't about that - it's about whether exclusive deals are bad for the consumer.

 

[Evangelion]

Why do you keep mentioning monopoly?

Why do YOU keep on talking about monopoly? And what made you bring up the FCC-investigation in this context in the first place? I believe you first mentioned during this "Apple is a monopoly!"-drivel. Are you just dying to find ANY negative things to say about Apple?

 

[amiganut]

How Much $

Imagine how much more Apple could make if the iPhone was available on other carriers. Would you buy an iPhone instead of a Blackberry or an LG or Samsung, etc. if they were available? I would love to have an iPhone, but not ATT. I played with a Palm Pre. Did not care for it.

 

[DELLsFan]

... I think AT&T is thrilled to be the exclusive provider of the iPhone in the U.S. right now and is more than happy to pay for the privilege.

It's called bad business.

Fixed. IMO, the exclusivity contracts need to end and competition (such as it is) revisited between the carriers to vie for a piece of Apple's pie.