And as I said, you have revenue growth when your production costs decrease or sales price increases. Both of which Apple has had and you continue to see more of as product lines mature.
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.
iOS Adoption Remains at Lowest Levels Since 2014 as Android Captures Record 87.5% Market Share
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And as I said, you have revenue growth when your production costs decrease or sales price increases. Both of which Apple has had and you continue to see more of as product lines mature.
Not sure I follow this reasoning. So you only use phones made by the same vendor as your computer?
In terms of the overall eco-system and productivity advantages of doing so, yes. But, as this erodes, maybe not. That's something Android and Windows phone users maybe never experienced before?
Since this statistic is a relationship (%) between OSes, as cheap Android phones flood the rest of the world, the percentage of users using iOS will fall in comparison...even though iOS adoption for Apple is actually increasing.
So this data really is a reflection of how much cheap stuff the "race to the bottom" manufacturers are putting out.
So this data really is a reflection of how much cheap stuff the "race to the bottom" manufacturers are putting out.
Yes, and it also doesn't reflect devices actually being used, and for what. It's simply tracking devices, sold recently, with a particular OS associated with that kind of hardware.
When you start looking at more realistic things, like ad revenue, website logs, apps purchased, etc. it is a very different picture. (Or, from Apple's viewpoint, profits.)
(I know the answer...) but, so what? (see below)
Yes, and Photos, and iTunes, and most of the UI, and poor consistency between iOS and macOS, and flat... need I say more? It's like a bunch of entry-level designers were unleashed to rip apart and then cobble back up, a refined machine.
Or, you could just be happy making many billions each year in profits. I know, I know... the Wall Street idiots won't stand for that. And, you're right that Apple is stuck in that trap. But, what I don't see is why they won't sell more units. Or, why selling millions of devices at high profit margins, and possibly growing in terms of other market segments, wouldn't be just as good?
As a business owner, I'm quite happy with clients who renew services with me each year. It's the core of my business. Of course, I also seek more customers and create new services. But, this concept that a business has to just keep forever increasing market share to survive is silly.
It's a bit different for public companies because if you want the market to give you a valuation that is a multiple of your earnings then either your dividend must be significantly above the riskless rate of return or you must be increasing profits so that the total value of the business grows, otherwise there is no reason to pay a premium in today's dollars for the risk you undertake by investing in the company.
Of course it is irrelevant to you, unless of course usage was higher, in which case it would be very relevant and lots of rah! rah!
Apple has already pretty much peaked at the economies of scales and increasing price dependent on price elasticity can had the reverse effect of driving profits upwards. Getting new clients is the best way to do so. With that reguards, replacement sales will not drive the required growth that investors look for.
A remarkably condescending and ignorant statement....
Apple was the second best-selling smart phone in China for a period during 2015, and the iPhones cost more there than in the US. Apple's sales in China have dropped more than 50% since then.
The reason is that new and better products have risen to the top, with Oppo just becoming the best selling brand in China. BTW, the new Oppo r9s has a camera which tests better than the iPhone 7's camera. As does the OnePlus 3, as does LG, HTC and the new Pixel.
China Top 5 Smartphone Vendors by Shipment, 2015Q3-2016Q3
The Oppo r9s sells for just over $400 in China, the r9s Plus will be closer to $600. Hardly "cheap," but in many ways better than the iPhone.
Don't assume that those who buy phones from brands unknown to you are necessarily less intelligent, or poorer than you.
Last edited:
And in the end that is what matters most to Apple, its kind of pathetic when you really think about it. I guess I'm just tired of the whole apple ecosystem and the hypocrisy that has become apple. It's all about the money and not the user. Sad days we live in.
Which third world countries do you specifically remember seeing those cars in? I ask because I'm genuinely curious, as I like to travel. I've yet to travel to a third world country so I'm quite poorly-versed in the subject.
Quality not quantity of user base is all I care about as both an App developer and website business owner.
If I check my web site analytics this 87.5% translates to something like 30% Android in comparison to 33% for iOS.
Android is a filler Phone OS, the cheap and easy choice of those who don't browse the internet, download apps or do anything other than make and receive phone calls.
>77% of that figure is disposable phones.
If I check my web site analytics this 87.5% translates to something like 30% Android in comparison to 33% for iOS.
Android is a filler Phone OS, the cheap and easy choice of those who don't browse the internet, download apps or do anything other than make and receive phone calls.
>77% of that figure is disposable phones.
Yes, I noted that, which is why I said 'see below.' Apple is, unfortunately, trapped in that game unless they could somehow buy their way out and privatize. That's called speculation, though, not necessarily investment (in how it's actually being played most of the time).
Sure, you're going to take into account how you think a company might perform in the future, but the main metric (in terms of investment) should be things like profits, good management, innovation, and a solid path for the future. As long as a company returns good profits, they are a good investment.
This reminds me of all the people investing in S.F. housing in the mid-2000s on speculation that the wildly rising prices would continue forever. That's not investment, it's a form of Vegas masquerading as legit. I'm not saying that if I had extra cash laying around, I might not play the game too... but I'd recognize it for what it is. If it were about investment, the system would work differently (w/ different laws and rules).
Exactly. It's a 'brag' metric. I don't recall Apple saying much when their 'market share' was estimated at 10%, or 13% or whatever (again, since it's baloney, who knows what it actually is?). When they had good looking figures, they include them in the keynote speeches.
That doesn't mean they aren't irrelevant.
Maybe, but is what the 'investors' are looking for really all that important? Steve didn't save Apple by giving a flying $#*(@ about what the investors thought. He built the company and the investors followed. It's the Henry Ford and horse/car thing.
I never said it would drive the desired growth, just that it is still a growth rather than a completely flat line.
With the release of each iPhone they bring more people back. Some eventually leave and go for other devices. Each new device is another chance by each manufacturer to make some jump ship and come to them, at least for a bit. It's no different than the game the phone companies, internet providers, etc play.
OMG, PLEASE don't say that! You know Ivys and Cook are dumb enough to actually do it!
Sure....
"According to the latest market share numbers for the first quarter of 2016 ... Android grew significantly in the U.S., Europe, and China as Apple’s iOS lost ground."
http://venturebeat.com/2016/05/11/android-is-eating-apples-ios-market-share-everywhere/
Indeed, the other vendors have certainly stepped up their game but all depend on Android OS (as I am sure you already knew). Not being responsible for the OS that runs the phone certainly must reduce development costs. Likewise, as far as I know, most of them use off the shelf components (do any of them actually engineer custom chipsets?). That also cuts down development cost. It is unlikely they will ever be able to offer the efficiency of the iPhone but Apple will never be able to offer lowest price point and rarely the latest and greatest.
I disagree.
With the iPod, Steve Jobs ensured that Apple offered a model for every market, and, therefore, Apple enjoyed marketshare of 60%+.
Whilst people often boast of the iPhone numbers sold increasing greatly under Cook, I think he has done terribly. He has restricted Apple to a relatively tiny marketshare by pricing Apple out of the market. Jobs, by contrast, had he lived, would, I believe, have opened up the iPhone to all markets, thereby increasing the iPhone marketshare to the same 60% that the iPod enjoyed, thereby selling a magnitude more than Cook managed. Apple's revenue and profits would have been astronomically higher than under Cook. Apple would have utterly dominated the phone market around the world and been driven to new heights as never before.
Business arguments aside, to the extent that the Android numbers indicate penetration into some of the poorest parts of the world represents a massive quality of life shift for those places. Love it or hate it, Android is a technological marvel and it's a modern miracle that cultures that still use ox to plow their fields have access to that kind of technology.
I think having a lot of hardware vendors is good as long as they don't fragment the platform too much-- that's what makes it distinct from iOS. These last two bits are a problem though. Nobody can stay in a business they aren't making money from, and competing head to head with your OS vendor has to look like an existential threat particularly for the smaller players.
I agree, the music app is terrible. However, it does not reflect the platform as a whole and the music app can be replaced, especially in iOS 10. There are ample good apps that integrate with the music library and can provide a different user interface.
I asked for examples pertaining to ‘but I do find iOS less user-friendly and clunkier that Android 6 and more so than Android 7’. You gave one relevant example (flashlight), an example that may have been relevant four years ago, but no longer. I know that Android had widgets and folders for longer and has different capabilities for multitasking, but these points have been obsolete for years now. This is exactly why I think that these feature comparisons between the platforms are lame.
It is not nonsense. Admittedly, the LED flash was not one of those things that Apple permitted apps to do in the background until they added it to Control Center in iOS 7. However, it has been possible for a long time to play audio in the background as well as many other activities. Apple also added background-refresh capabilities so that apps can refresh without having to run in the background constantly.
I believe I was clear enough when I said that Apple has a different idea about background activity and multitasking than Android, from the start. Instead of just letting apps run in the background unimpeded, Apple chose to implement this functionality in APIs instead. It is a matter of design, not technical advance. I simply reject the notion that Android is ‘pulling ahead’ in this area, because it clearly was not a technical obstacle for Apple, given that apps like Music and Phone were always capable of running in the background. The fact that Google has implemented technologies to freeze applications and limit/disable their background activity in Marshmallow and Nougat, many years later, says a lot about the appeal of Apple’s standpoint.
What ‘innovation’ is Apple lacking that Google has? Have you seen the boatload of platform enhancements that Apple added in iOS 10, or even iOS 8 and 9 for that matter? They are extensive. I feel that when people say smartphone ‘innovation’ they really only mean visible end-user features, not the platform as a whole. Both Android and iOS are bleeding edge under the hood.
Last edited:
What are you talking about? At least in China, every Chinese APP is available on both Android and iOS. If you're talking about Western/English developers translating their APP, that's a different story. But not sure what you mean or implying with your comment about localized APPSs.
It would be interesting to see what Apple would be like if it were a private company, owned entirely by the Jobs family. But what frustrates me, is that people don't understand that Apple is out to make a profit, this is why they don't compete with Android. There's absolutely no profit in the 'low quality-low price' cell phone market. It's perfectly competitive at the low end of the spectrum: all the phones are pretty much identical with very little brand recognition. It's only when you start getting in the mid to premium handsets that you get differentiation and brand recognition. This is where the profit is: oligopoly. You basically have Samsung, Apple, HTC, OPPO and a few others. Just look at the market share by sales volume to see what I mean. It's a classic oligopoly example: a few dominate players and then everyone else.
Point being: Apple's growth is in selling in developing markets and expanding services. It's not in its hardware. MacOS isn't going to take over the world. It's not a revenue growth machine. It's stagnant, and people thinking that 'IF ONLY THEY WOULD RELEASE A DECENT MAC LINE!' are foolish. Microsoft is the dominate player, and it would take a huge, huge, huge, shift to get companies to use MacOS over Windows. Apple is trying it, but that's not the low hanging fruit. The low hanging fruit is developing markets.
So, basically, think like a business person and what Apple is doing makes complete sense.
Well, yes and no. Investors who are shareholders, own the company. So with that reguards, unless the CEO is a visionary and is willing to risk the company stock price, is most likely going to take the safe road. And most likely only aim for short term profits.
I can't see Cook challenging the status quo unfortunately. This is what happened to Microsoft when Bill left and Ballmer took over.
[doublepost=1478132753][/doublepost]
That's not growth, replacement but the nature of it, is maintaining sales. If they bring more people back with a new phone version, that's growth based on new clients, which is what Apple needs.
I always think the proof is in the profits.
Nobody else is making anywhere near what Apple's making in the smartphone market.
Since Windows Mobile has exited the scene, Android has gobbled up the 'other' market.
Like any other premium brand, selling the most units isn't their goal, maintaining standards (e.g. not having exploding batteries) and making $$$ is more important.
How's the iPhone 7 selling vs the Note 7? Hmmmm...
I actually feel sorry for android phone makers. They're on a platform where once they sell the phone that's it no more ways to make money and they have to support with updates. They have zero option but to go with android or their phone won't sell and they can barely make any profits. Apple meanwhile make money hand over fist with in many ways a worse OS and loads of after sales services, apple music, iCloud storage etc etc.
Both google and apple are raping the phone market right now with a duopoly that is starting to hurt consumers in one way or another on both platforms.
Both google and apple are raping the phone market right now with a duopoly that is starting to hurt consumers in one way or another on both platforms.