Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
actually those 2 charts display the following:

apple creates HUGE share of revenue with SMALL market share.

that just means, apple's products are WAY more expensive than other phones.

don't get me wrong, i like apple.
It's just that these 2 charts actually serve as proof to the theory that apple phones are quite overpriced.

Apples pricing, known in the real world as "Apple Tax" is obscene.

It's how Apple became the Fat Cat they are today.
 
But I don't see Nokia innovating in that space either. Perhaps a great African handset would have a solar power panel. Or a built-in winder.

So you don't think it takes innovation to be able to produce a smartphone that retails for US$100 (unsubsidised) and still make a profit?

I tried to buy a handset for my elderly parents. And there were no handsets I could find with large buttons, a clear display and an interface designed for someone older than 60? Why not? Because if you are chasing market share, you assume that one product fits all.

That would be a growing market, one that touch screens would be a better cater for. Why not look at the number one touch screen phone producer, Samsung?

Design innovation is not always about cramming in more features, its about making the device more valuable to specific customers. And by increasing value, you create profitability.

And you are straight back to profit. Why do you keep bringing them up when you have already agreed that the majority of the world cannot afford these expensive, profit driven phones. I have already said this, cost is a value to a consumer. It takes innovation to produce a feature laden phone, at a cheap price and to still produce a profit. Then if you sell these at volume you make a larger profit.

Customers can buy assembled components from anyone. They will pay the lowest price for that. But they will pay more for solutions which give real value.

Yes they will, but as you seem to forget really quickly, the majority of the world cannot afford this expensive solution you keep talking about.

If you read Risku's interpretation, it sounds like someone gets what the problem is.

His views are not anything new, that information has been know for a long time. It was your solutions I was commented on.
 
oh yeah, right, Nokia ...
we all know how well Nokia is currently doing...

http://www.businessweek.com/idg/201...arnings-down-40-percent-on-flat-q2-sales.html

Just one more example of what a HUGE market disruption Apple has created in an industry they didn't even play in 3 years ago.

Three years folks...THREE YEARS. And look at what an impact this American-based company has made on an industry previously dominated by others. Nobody can refute their impact. Humiliated the cellphone industry? Not so much as set it on its ear and totally took them by surprise.
 
Apple has always done this. They're making existing products better from a usability standpoint that others haven't. I always read/hear people say that what Apple does isn't revolutionary. But what Apple has done is make something beautiful aesthetically and offers a user experience that no other company offers. I will say this that Nokia has something cooked up that may turn things around. And no other cellphone company can get away with the things Apple does/did. They would have dealt with it more professionally instead of pointing fingers.
 
Just one more example of what a HUGE market disruption Apple has created in an industry they didn't even play in 3 years ago.

Three years folks...THREE YEARS. And look at what an impact this American-based company has made on an industry previously dominated by others. Nobody can refute their impact. Humiliated the cellphone industry? Not so much as set it on its ear and totally took them by surprise.

Oh please. Remember the RAZR? Everyone wanted one, and for a while it was the handset to own, and made Motorola tons of profit. But look at the situation today. No one even remembers the RAZR. Thats because handsets are commodities just like computers, and iphone will fall aside like RAZR did.

Apple's strategy with the iphone is going to be just like with the mac. Market the hell out of its devices and try to give the impression that its actually better (when in reality it just uses slower commodity hardware) and make it more expensive to give it the allure of exclusivity. To apple's credit, they are very good at getting people to buy into their marketing.
 
Apple's strategy with the iphone is going to be just like with the mac. Market the hell out of its devices and try to give the impression that its actually better (when in reality it just uses slower commodity hardware) and make it more expensive to give it the allure of exclusivity. To apple's credit, they are very good at getting people to buy into their marketing.

Yet another "it's all marketing post".

It's surprising that Apples rivals don't understand this simple fact and try some marketing themselves. I wonder why they don't grasp this simple fact.

C.
 
Oh please. Remember the RAZR? Everyone wanted one, and for a while it was the handset to own, and made Motorola tons of profit. But look at the situation today. No one even remembers the RAZR. Thats because handsets are commodities just like computers, and iphone will fall aside like RAZR did.

Apple's strategy with the iphone is going to be just like with the mac. Market the hell out of its devices and try to give the impression that its actually better (when in reality it just uses slower commodity hardware) and make it more expensive to give it the allure of exclusivity. To apple's credit, they are very good at getting people to buy into their marketing.

1. Razr was a popular phone.
2. Razr is no longer a popular phone.
3. iPhone is a popular phone.
4. ????
5. iPhone will fail!
 
So you don't think it takes innovation to be able to produce a smartphone that retails for US$100 (unsubsidised) and still make a profit?
Anyone can take $90 of parts, solder them together and sell them for $100. This is Dell's business model. It requires large volumes. And requires using those volumes to push down component costs. But that is not innovation. No value is being added.

The skill is to take $50 of components and sell them for $100.

That is the magic that innovative design can perform. It's not easy.

A lot if people think this trick can be performed by some fancy advertising and being greedy when writing the price tag. But markets are not that dumb. If they were, everyone would be trying the same scam.

C.
 
Not so ridiculous when you consider my company has to pay $300 to get an iphone for me but only $80 if I wanted the latest blackberry....

I get my blackberry for free from my company and they pay 100% of my usage fees...and I still choose to pay for an iPhone for my personal line because it's simply much more functional. I basically carry my bold 9700 so I can hear the ding and know when to check my mail on the corporate VPN...
 
No I'm not saying that. I am saying it is pretty ignorant for someone to say that a business shouldn't target a particular group of consumer, especially when they can make a profit off it.

And maybe using Wal-Mart wasn't a good example for you to use, have you looked at their income levels?

Nokia isn't making a profit off of it. They need to drastically change their model.

I used Wal-Mart as an example because they aren't doing it for society, they are doing it for profit.
 
Oh please. Remember the RAZR? Everyone wanted one, and for a while it was the handset to own, and made Motorola tons of profit. But look at the situation today. No one even remembers the RAZR. Thats because handsets are commodities just like computers, and iphone will fall aside like RAZR did.

Apple's strategy with the iphone is going to be just like with the mac. Market the hell out of its devices and try to give the impression that its actually better (when in reality it just uses slower commodity hardware) and make it more expensive to give it the allure of exclusivity. To apple's credit, they are very good at getting people to buy into their marketing.

uhm ... noone? isn't the RAZR being used as prime example for 'a phone everybody has' ... i think everyone remembers it pretty well, thank you.

and ofcourse noone cares about a RAZR anymore today, because phones evolved.
That's why there's a new iPhone each year, you know? :/
 
And the funny thing is the other companies are pretty much giving away their phones and people still buy the iPhone.

Not so ridiculous when you consider my company has to pay $300 to get an iphone for me but only $80 if I wanted the latest blackberry....

Ever heard of economics? People pay MARKET VALUE for the device.

And BlackBerry isn't the same as an iPhone.


Economics 101: The iPhone 4 is underpriced. Demand is far exceeding supply.

'overhyped' is very subjective. Experts would place the iPhone's value in its design, user interface, applications, and product support. In most of these categories Apple has the lead on the competitors.

I can see why you would call the iPhone 'overhyped' if you looked purely at it on sheet of paper, but thankfully this isn't a PC world. Yes it doesn't have a 4.3" screen or a 8MP camera (which performs worse than the 5MP in the 4), but a grandma could use it. You won't find 'most intuitive mobile OS' on a spec sheet.

Great post.
 
Economics 101: The iPhone 4 is underpriced. Demand is far exceeding supply.

'overhyped' is very subjective. Experts would place the iPhone's value in its design, user interface, applications, and product support. In most of these categories Apple has the lead on the competitors.

I can see why you would call the iPhone 'overhyped' if you looked purely at it on sheet of paper, but thankfully this isn't a PC world. Yes it doesn't have a 4.3" screen or a 8MP camera (which performs worse than the 5MP in the 4), but a grandma could use it. You won't find 'most intuitive mobile OS' on a spec sheet.

By that criteria the EVO 4G and Droid X are underpriced. They're all sold out. Stop trying to twist this around into "Apple makes a uniquely great smartphone". HTC & Google have caught up and surpassed the iPhone.

Nokia isn't making a profit off of it. They need to drastically change their model.

I used Wal-Mart as an example because they aren't doing it for society, they are doing it for profit.

As evidenced by the iPhone, Droid, EVO 4G, people are willing to pay premium for super-touch-screen-can-do-anything handsets and are willing to pay virtually nothing for the old-style feature phones.

Also remember Apple is American, HTC is Taiwanese. Never underestimate xenophobia as a factor in product sales.
 
Nokia isn't making a profit off of it. They need to drastically change their model.

Well you are showing your ignorance now, maybe you should go look at their financial report before posting.

Anyone can take $90 of parts, solder them together and sell them for $100. This is Dell's business model. It requires large volumes. And requires using those volumes to push down component costs. But that is not innovation. No value is being added.

So you know the full production cost, deliver costs etc for all phones, computers from various manufactures? You are grasping at straws now, you are showing your ignorance to people in a position different than yourself.
 
uhm ... noone? isn't the RAZR being used as prime example for 'a phone everybody has' ... i think everyone remembers it pretty well, thank you.

and ofcourse noone cares about a RAZR anymore today, because phones evolved.
That's why there's a new iPhone each year, you know? :/

Talk about being obtuse, and thanks for making my point for me. RAZR was the most popular phone for several years, then it just faded out because like you said, phones evolve. Nothing apple has done with the iphone is unique to apple and touchscreen smartphones are starting to become commoditized.

Sure, iOS provides some unique experiences, but just like computers most people wont care and will prefer to choose a phone that is good enough rather than pay a premium.
 
Sure, iOS provides some unique experiences, but just like computers most people wont care and will prefer to choose a phone that is good enough rather than pay a premium.

When it comes to a box under the desk that no one sees, people don't care how cheap it looks.

But when in comes to conspicuous accessories, people go out of their way not to look cheap, even if it mean paying a ridiculous premium. A lot of very expensive shoes get sold in low income neighborhoods (What's Nike's profit margin on those!?) Even more expensive clothing and accessories gets sold in better neighborhoods. Most women don't buy purses that are just "good enough" for carrying stuff.

Cell phones are today's conspicuous accessory. A huge percentage of the population won't want to be seen with any non-premium device that's just "good enough".

This is probably one of the real reasons for antennagate. How can you show off your hip cool conspicuous consumption accessory if you have to put your i4 in a case??? IT'S A MAJOR FLAW...

...in people's egos.
 
But when in comes to conspicuous accessories, people go out of their way not to look cheap, even if it mean paying a ridiculous premium. A lot of very expensive shoes get sold in low income neighborhoods (What's Nike's profit margin on those!?) Even more expensive clothing and accessories gets sold in better neighborhoods. Most women don't buy purses that are just "good enough" for carrying stuff.

Your example of Nike isn't a good one because Nike doesnt sell only high end items. Nike competes in the high end down to the mid end. Furthermore high end nike gear can often be found at discounted prices - even in nike's own stores. None of these things apply to apple.

Apple's whole niche is that it's a premium product. Its products look nicer and its more like a fashion accessory. There's nothing wrong with that. But to be the smartphone leader you have to have low end products, and I dont ever see apple going there.
 
Not so ridiculous when you consider my company has to pay $300 to get an iphone for me but only $80 if I wanted the latest blackberry....

What makes you think, for even one second, that we would give two flying ****'s about your company?

Blackberries pale in comparison to the iPhone, period. The Blackberry Storm (1 and 2) are so incredibly awful, I can't even fathom why anyone would buy one.

One of my friends says he would love an iPhone, but needs the physical keyboard to communicate all day. I can text faster on my iphone...
 
Apple's whole niche is that it's a premium product. Its products look nicer and its more like a fashion accessory. There's nothing wrong with that. But to be the smartphone leader you have to have low end products, and I dont ever see apple going there.

lol r u making this stuff up as you go?

look just keep calling the iPhone a fashion accessory all day. When I can pick up a $20 dollar prepaid over at walmart that runs the same apps and has itunes like intergration then i'll buy it and sell my iPhone.

and besides being "fashionable" isn't necessarily a bad thing. Lots of manufacturer's don't give 2 thoughts wrt design. Some sell themselves on being giant bricks that can display output to your TV while other's pride themselves on being the world's smallest. Doesn't make a different if they get the job done.
 
Also remember Apple is American, HTC is Taiwanese. Never underestimate xenophobia as a factor in product sales.

I'm seriously doubtful that a majority of Americans are going to avoid HTC because it's a Taiwanese company. I bet you 90% of your average cell phone users don't even know that HTC is a foreign company.
 
So you know the full production cost, deliver costs etc for all phones, computers from various manufactures? You are grasping at straws now, you are showing your ignorance to people in a position different than yourself.

Err...
It's not hard to divide published profit figures by published number-of-devices-sold.
It's a fascinating exercise. You should try it.
C.
 
lol r u making this stuff up as you go?

Making what up? That apple considers itself a premium brand? that's not true?

look just keep calling the iPhone a fashion accessory all day. When I can pick up a $20 dollar prepaid over at walmart that runs the same apps and has itunes like intergration then i'll buy it and sell my iPhone.

Actually another poster brought up the thing about how looks play and status of items play a big role in purchasing decisions. I was agreeing with him.

and besides being "fashionable" isn't necessarily a bad thing. Lots of manufacturer's don't give 2 thoughts wrt design. Some sell themselves on being giant bricks that can display output to your TV while other's pride themselves on being the world's smallest. Doesn't make a different if they get the job done.

I dont disagree. If people want to buy a phone as a fashion accesory, great.
 
Err...
It's not hard to divide published profit figures by published number-of-devices-sold.
It's a fascinating exercise. You should try it.
C.

Issue being you are assuming all the devices cost the same to produce, and sell for the same price. The average sale price is just that.

A fruitless exercise I would have thought.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.