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 Share of Mobile Phone Industry Profits Reportedly Rises to 39%
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
These are not the numbers you are looking for.
Apple made around 15 billion in revenue last quarter. 3% of that would be 450 million per quarter.
(And 63 billion x 3% = 1.89 billion)
Yep.
Has anyone tried any of the new Win 7 equipped laptops vs a mac?
There really is no major difference, and if it werent for certain key pieces of software.. mainly Logic Pro for me, there'd be no need to shell out for a mac/osx if you cared about money.
If youre honest with yourself you'll admit it. Dont get me wrong macs are smoother in some areas.. but nowhere near 500+ GBP better, as evidenced by their profits. Absolutely no way. Right now they are largely aluminium and glass status symbols. About the only Mac worth the money is the midrange iMac
I'd love to know if these mobile phone profits numbers are based off U.S? or worldwide? As it appears in U.S they retail for bout the same as Android.
However in UK, you pretty much always pay a hefty amount for the (current) iphone, on top of 18 month contract, unless you go for the most expensive plans-on an 18 month contract.
Bravo to Apple though.
Couldn't disagree more, being honest. First, there is the hardware. I have had zero problems with several Apple laptops compared to every friend of mine that has bought the cheaper stuff at costco, best buy, etc. They've had power supply problems, DVD problems, keyboard problems - AND they have a terrible time getting it fixed, even under warranty. I used one of these $ saving system the other day and I could believe how bad the trackpad was, the keyboard was like mush, etc. In addition the laptop was significantly larger than my MBP. Now, I know you can easily match it spec-for-spec but I'm just judging by what people, who use computers every day, actually buy to save money and they are 'cheap' in the build sense.
As to software, my friends are still dealing with virus checkers, malware checkers, etc. Do they have to do this? I don't know but Dell, HP, Etc. all market them this way. They users continually have problems.
Big example is upgrading from an Vista system to Win 7. They had to go buy a special USB cable to transfer their data from the old to the new. The instructions said it could be done over the network but that never worked, and this was after about 5 hours of trying.
This transfer was painless on every MBP system I've dealt with over the last 5 years. Migration assistant just works.
So no, I don't think its a wash between OS's still and the hardware build quality from Apple also adds tremendous value.
Fair enough I suppose your mileage wil vary...
All I'll say though is that a friend of mine is going into servicing Macs and iphones, and he always has tons of work- motherboards, screens, cpus etc. (its also incredible how many people seem to drop and smash their iphones-keeps him busy though lol!)
The problem with Pcs is the fact that yes you can get some really cheap and they will have poor motherboards, noisy drives cheap fans etc that fail.
On the other hand I also own a roughly 400GBP (when new) HP laptop with win7 32bit and it works a treat. 17 inch, quiet, fast core2duo etc. smooth touchpad. I cant believe the value for the money hence my post... honestly.
I go back to 17inch MBP and the design is nice.. but its just not another 1400GBP nicer to me. The new iMacs though I will be getting plus an iPad and I will be all set, no need for a laptop
And 'virus checkers etc' is really not a big deal, you just install Norton 2010 like you would Toast on a new mac and your done with it. Its all automatic and every now and then a little notice pops up telling you its deleted some tracking cookies (Something osx is not immune to). It doesnt slow the pc down more than 1% and is not hard work at all in the slightest.
I will admit you will generally have to remove the bundled software with Pcs for the most streamlined experience, but then most users wont know or care to remove the stuff anyways so it wont hurt them.
But yes the hardware design is very smooth..
Rips off the cutomer
This just means that Apple rips off the customer & overcharges as much as they can. That means that there is really very little in the iPhone. At this rate the iPhone should be a free phone for all of those that are receiving a subsidy or $199 max for a 32GB model. Anything more is Apple ripping off their loyal customers. Why are we so stupid at times.
This just means that Apple rips off the customer & overcharges as much as they can. That means that there is really very little in the iPhone. At this rate the iPhone should be a free phone for all of those that are receiving a subsidy or $199 max for a 32GB model. Anything more is Apple ripping off their loyal customers. Why are we so stupid at times.
A true double troll complaining about both gouging AND failure to distribute large cash hoard. If aapl continues to piss off the clowns it must be doing something right.
If you can't afford it, T Mobile probably has some prepaid plans which would interest you.
As a shareholder of Apple I am a long way from being pissed.
GOOG shareholders might be getting pissed though.
Dividends
Shows you have a lot to learn about investing. Dividend stocks are typically for older folks who needs regular income. A growth stock like Apple have a much higher return in term of gain in share price.
A $100 stock that pays $4 annual dividend is a return of 4% (assuming constant stock price). A $100 growth stock gaining $20 in stock price result in a return of 20%. So between the two stocks, choosing a 20% return stock is a no brainer. It's all about the return.
The amazing fact about the figures is that potential sales that Apple may gain with only a 3% existing market share. As an Apple investor, it just makes me drool. The upside is very promising indeed, if Apple can capitalize. Conversely, their 70% iPod market share has no or very little growth left.
Shows you have a lot to learn about investing. Dividend stocks are typically for older folks who needs regular income. A growth stock like Apple have a much higher return in term of gain in share price.
A $100 stock that pays $4 annual dividend is a return of 4% (assuming constant stock price). A $100 growth stock gaining $20 in stock price result in a return of 20%. So between the two stocks, choosing a 20% return stock is a no brainer. It's all about the return.
The amazing fact about the figures is that potential sales that Apple may gain with only a 3% existing market share. As an Apple investor, it just makes me drool. The upside is very promising indeed, if Apple can capitalize. Conversely, their 70% iPod market share has no or very little growth left.
Here's what I don't get. Android is open source and free for handset makers to use so there's minimal development costs for them as far as software goes. They produce a wider array of hardware and, reportedly, sell more units than Apple. Not counting the buy-one-get-one deals, Android phones are comparably priced with comparably priced contracts, a portion of which goes back to the hardware maker in the form of subsidies.
So how exactly is it that Apple is still taking a significantly larger chunk of the profit than their competitors? I don't see how that happens. The only scenario I can imagine is that the only time people buy Android handsets is when there are buy-one-get-one offer and that Android phones really only sell competitively at half-price. I can't imagine that's the case, and if it is, how on earth is that a good business strategy?
So how exactly is it that Apple is still taking a significantly larger chunk of the profit than their competitors? I don't see how that happens. The only scenario I can imagine is that the only time people buy Android handsets is when there are buy-one-get-one offer and that Android phones really only sell competitively at half-price. I can't imagine that's the case, and if it is, how on earth is that a good business strategy?
I might not be a big business type man like you, but with these two examples you have given, the first one still has growth potential, you can hold it and get further possible dividens, you can sell it and get any possible stock growth with it.
But in your second example, once you have sold it, you get no more returns.
It's not free as far as customization, porting and testing, or less development work than say, buying WinMo and doing the same. Still, the major expense for smartphone makers is paying up to $60 a phone for other royalties and licenses.
As usual with these publicity seeking "reports", they're carefully staged. Here's the trick:
This report is comparing Apple iPhone profits (100% smartphone sales at high margin), against three companies whose total income includes only 20% smartphones, with the other 80% of income coming from selling cheap dumbphones with very minimal profits.
Those dumbphones each only make something like 5% of the profit that Apple makes from each iPhone. So any company (e.g. Apple) selling only high-profit phones gets a bigger percentage of the overall profit. D'oh! Not so shocking after all. It's like comparing an expensive steak-only restaurant chain to a cheap hamburger chain, and pointing out that the steaks make more profit.
The other inequity is that many/most of the other phones are sold outright to the world customer, whereas Apple's phone is almost always highly subsidized in order to maximize profits. (This is why the report picked those companies... they sell unsubsidized all over the world.)
The phone maker still gets full price. BOGO is from the carrier, who sees it as a half price sale in return for getting TWO signed contract customers.
It's not "we" that are stupid, my friend. It is you for you totally ignorant comment. Apple charges about what the market will bear and is compatible with the competition.
The point is still the same. If I sold the stock and get $120, that money can be reinvested in another company. At the end of the year, I either have $104 or $120 depending on the investment choice. Whether I keep or sell both stocks, the value of each at the end of the year is different.
No matter what the numbers are, posters here will spin the meaning - either for or against Apple. But its fun reading all the same.
Or you could get the growth and dividend. With its massive "cash reserve", Apple is just sitting on money instead of either investing it in bettering the company or by paying dividend.
You could have had 124$ at the end of the year.
Either way, this story is for shareholders. Profits do not benefit consumers if it is not reinvested into R&D and bettering products, something which Apple does in a very limited way as the numbers show.
Or you could get the growth and dividend. With its massive "cash reserve", Apple is just sitting on money instead of either investing it in bettering the company or by paying dividend.
You could have had 124$ at the end of the year.
Either way, this story is for shareholders. Profits do not benefit consumers if it is not reinvested into R&D and bettering products, something which Apple does in a very limited way as the numbers show.
Wrong again, on all counts. Retained earnings (undistributed cash) is accounted for in a stock's price (when msft distributed $3 as a special dividend, stock price dropped by $3). If you have 100 sh. of a non-dividend paying $100 stock which gains 20%, sell 4 shares. You're then 20% ahead of that 4% div. Non-growth stock on earnings, and your remaining stock is still worth 15% more. And as far as R&D expenditures, aapl is extremely efficient compared to its competitors which (especially msft, if even considered a competitor) seem to piss away money. And it's beyond laughable to suggest that the numbers show that aapl doesn't reinvest significantly into R&D. A huge percent of aapl's revenue stream today is from products which didn't even exist a short time ago. You think the Tooth Fairy brought them to aapl's production team?
BTW, working in a fast food joint would be more honorable than being paid to troll on competitor's forums.
As I said earlier in this thread, Apple is the R&D lab for the world in the way Bell Labs once was.
What do modern OS UIs look like today? OS X.
What do music players look like? iPods.
What do smart phones look like? iPhones.
What do upcoming tablets look like? iPads.
If Apple didn't absolutely invent the look and feel of all of these products, they put a lot of R&D into them to figure out what would please a user. The market quickly copied Apple.
We're living in an Apple world whether or not you use Apple products. Heck, just look at how many Apple haters hang out here. Apple is the center of their world even if it's out of hate.
What do modern OS UIs look like today? OS X.
What do music players look like? iPods.
What do smart phones look like? iPhones.
What do upcoming tablets look like? iPads.
If Apple didn't absolutely invent the look and feel of all of these products, they put a lot of R&D into them to figure out what would please a user. The market quickly copied Apple.
We're living in an Apple world whether or not you use Apple products. Heck, just look at how many Apple haters hang out here. Apple is the center of their world even if it's out of hate.
Well my OSX is ok looking...The dock is a bit of a joke. I wouldn't say Windows 7 or Ubuntu look like OSX though.
My Zune HD absolutely kills my iPhone 4 (and therefore the iPod touch) as a music player,and it doesn't look anything alike. Far better in fact.
Same goes for smartphones...you think the iPhone invented app icon grids? You think Windows Phone 7 looks anything like an iPhone?
The iPad does seem to be copied, but I don't use mine anymore except for my dev work. As a device to be used though, it's extremely lacking.
I have almost all Apple stuff, but I think you greatly overestimate their influence. Apple makes a lot of noise, and makes a good amount of money, but in terms of the industry they are still a miniscule player numbers wise.
I really find the arrogance of "investors" and diehards very sad and off putting. Most of them don't even really know what they are talking about.
To Microsoft's credit, they are finally moving beyond the look of the iPhone and the look of OS X, but it took them a while to do that.
But that doesn't change what I wrote. Apple popularizes a look, and just about everyone else starts to copy them. Smart phones before the iPhone did not look like the iPhone. Now they do.
But that doesn't change what I wrote. Apple popularizes a look, and just about everyone else starts to copy them. Smart phones before the iPhone did not look like the iPhone. Now they do.
Cue everyone celebrating that apple sell people less phone to people for more
Yup, that is actually a good thing. This allows them to spend huge amounts on R&D and continuously re-write the rules of the game. I am happy they dont use the short sighted model of volume and razor thin margins that completely repels innovation from any industry. After all, HTC and all others need someone to copy from to offer us better products at the end of the day.
Certainly not. Bell Labs (and IBM's TJ Watson Labs) did basic research in physics, chemistry and other sciences, and published a huge portion of their research results. The entire technical sector of the U.S. (and eventually the world) benefited.
Apple R&D is more like a focused Xerox PARC, but without giving the future away like Xerox did.
Well, yes, if you want to take it to a literal degree you are exactly right. But I simply meant it in the sense that Bell Labs came up with lots of innovations that benefited consumers. So does Apple now, albeit simply in a more limited field. But even here their reach is more than people think. Just go through a general purpose store and see how many devices take their design cue from Apple. Watch ads and see how often something in an Apple ad is copied.
It may not be as important as what Bell Labs came up with, but it sure is widespread in influence.