Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
the others couldn't compete with iOS/Android so i don't care they are pretty much dead.

Not surprised with iPhone being so low. Not everyone is willing to pay silly amounts of money for a phone. In the past a lot of people I knew who bought cheap phones had ones that didn't run Android but something like Blackberry or Windows. Now everyone has Android.

I would love to return to iPhone but Apple only seem to care selling it as a high end product. £1,000 starting price for an iPhone X is not even worth considering for me. Even the iPhone 8 isn't cheap at £700 starting price. So instead of going for iPhone I paid £450 for an android which can easily hold it's own against the iPhone X

If apple want to grow their market share then they need to stop trying to sell to idiots who are happy to pony up £1,000. They need to release mid range and budget phones too.
 
Android is also installed in TVs, refrigerators, billboards, etc.
Plus more and more used on laptops on Chromebooks as Google enabled as a feature of ChromeOS. Android is really eating the world. It took a long time but now Android is excellent. I carry both an iPhone and now a Pixel 2 XL and prefer Android. But hated the Android lag. Google has finally fixed that with the Pixel so I find myself using my iPhone less and less.

In a lot of ways the biggest issue with Android is Samsung gives it a bad name with their lag and how their phones slow down over time.
 
Last month I used my Windows Phone for a whole day while my iPhone X was at Apple being repaired. It was hell on earth, absolutely dreadful OS. I bought it as a backup phone 3 years ago at Walmart for $50. For a crappy little phone, it served as a great GPS so I'll give it that.

3yr old phone
walmart
50 bucks

--> Honestly what did you expect.

I have a 3 yr old iphone 6
Bought it for 650 bucks
with the latest OS, it runs like crap.
 
or more than ONE realistic options, for the majority of the world'd population. Apple only competes at the high end.
Do you think that Apple only competes in the high end because they are incapable of competing in the majority of real user consumer space? We can't beat Microsoft so lets increase the price of iPhones (despite the fact we are 15% and losing to Google)
 
I notice the study specifies "Sales to End Users" as its scope. What does this mean, in simple terms? Are corporate sales excluded? If they are, are sales to corporates a significant number and how does one differentiate? Sold to "XYZ Inc" or sold to "Jane Citizen", how would Gartner (or anyone else) know?

Surely units sold directly by the manufacturers or by 3rd-parties are the measures unless the numbers of smart-phone used by "the Feds" on a worldwide basis is a secret. Strange qualification on the numbers posted.

I think they're just referring to sell-through rather than sell-in. Their numbers for Apple line up pretty closely with what Apple has reported (for sell-through) itself.

It doesn't matter what the nature of the end user is - i.e., as being a corporate entity or individual consumer or government agency - sales to them are counted. But we're talking about sales to those end users (including sales to those end users through third parties), not sales into the channel which are often referred to as shipments (or sell-in).
 
Is ridiculing Steve Ballmer still a thing on Macrumors? I would have sworn it was 2010.
The mobile failure started on his watch.
He gets whatever history dishes out.
In 2018, Microsoft is doing all kinds of cool things with Hololens, XBox One X, VR/AR, Surface, Windows on ARM, Azure, AI, Cortana, etc... This is not the same company that existed in 2007.
Irrelevant.
They failed at mobile when they could have been kings.
This thread is about mobile, not about laptops, Xbox, Windows, AI etc..
 
Last edited:
If MS would have jumped into the mobile market full-force in 2008 I think they could have given Apple a run for their money. By the time they had a decent partnership with Nokia and released flagship quality phones in 2012 with the 920 and 1020 it was too late. Apple had five years' head start and had firmly established themselves as the high-end manufacturer with an entrenched user base and an extensive developer network.

Microsoft couldn't. People often forget, Microsoft was under the heavy thumb of the FTC and Justice Department at the time. The 1998 Consent Decree put them under constant scrutiny and examination by the Justice Department for violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act for their bundling practices of Internet Explorer with the Windows operating system (using a monopoly in one market (the Operating System) to obtain the monopoly in another (the Web browsers)). Yes, this seems incredibly silly and irrelevant in 2018, and new kids these days don't know that there was no Chrome, Firefox, or others back in 1998; Microsoft strangled that new market back then. So the DOJ punished them for it.

Microsoft could not use their continued monopoly in the Operating System market in the period of 2007-2011 to strongly enter the new mobile device markets. They had entry, yes, but they couldn't promote it, they couldn't make technology acquisitions, they couldn't "bundle" Windows Mobile in any way, etc. They had to sit back quietly while RIMM took the market, and they couldn't do anything to compete against Apple.

DOJ personnel actually lived at Microsoft HQ in Washington on a daily basis and reviewed every contract and document that came through. When Microsoft bought Skype, that had to be reviewed internally alongside DOJ personnel and had to agree to conditions, including (you named it) trying to "bundle" Skype with Windows. Skype was now a Microsoft product, but they had to keep it separate. Same with OneDrive (nee SkyDrive).

The consent decree expired in May 2011, and that's why OneDrive could become integrated with Windows 8. By then, Microsoft was powerless in the markets, Apple took Microsoft's oxygen and wielded all the power Microsoft once had.

Apple played their cards well. But Apple did not do this on their own power. The DOJ destroyed Microsoft and made all the power up for grabs. RIMM could have taken the power (and they leveraged it for a while, but they ignored the long game), Nokia could have taken it but they were already in bed with a gagged Microsoft so that had its own limitations, Google... Google couldn't take it.

Google was already being sniffed out by the FTC in 2007 for their acquisition of DoubleClick. The last thing Google needed was more DOJ and FTC attention. Google bought Android in 2005, which was already on a bad approach and had to change direction after iPhone came out in 2007. So by time this all came around in 2007, Android wasn't even a meaningful thing. Yes, Android was "there" but it was a mess and it wasn't cohesive. It got its act together once it had Google's cash, tho. But the iPhone was already on the market, making waves.

The only player with any chance in the market, leading into 2007, ... was Apple. But again, the landscape was laid bare by the DOJ. Apple just moved in. They didn't "compete" their way into it like an organic market. I love my Apple, love the products, and I love my stock shares and investment.

We should thank the DOJ for giving Apple the opportunity. This is also why Apple does not want to be "#1" in the markets. If you are #2, you can do all kinds of sneaky things like bundle the browser, desktop OS, mobile OS, and wearable devices together and not have to play nice (give access to NFC chip, allow interoperability with the wearables to third party things) and you can do forceful things like hold a gun to Intel's head to make the chips you want, and piss on Qualcomm, strangle Imagination Technologies, etc. A strong #2 player can do these things. You can't do these deals if you are #1.

You can't use a monopoly in one market to gain the monopoly in another. Lest the fate of Microsoft be felled upon you.
 
we need a third playeri n the market, perhaps an open source one kind of linux for OS and FireFox for browsers. Competition is good.
 
Proof?
[doublepost=1519345345][/doublepost]

Same thing with Samsung & exploding batteries. lol ;)
Same original problem but two totally different engineering/PR approaches and outcomes. Samsung had a full product recall and stalled while more people were hurt. Apple got a lot of bad press but the lawsuits that will probably be thrown out of court or settled down to $10 iTunes gift cards for a small group. Meanwhile, Samsung pivots to release a new Note and most of their customers forgive and forget. We'll see how this affects Apple long term but it just goes to show you that the more valuable your brand is, the more you have to lose.
 
Would be great for the industry if another competitor could step up and offering something equally as compelling.
 
or more than ONE realistic options, for the majority of the world'd population. Apple only competes at the high end.

I'd say Google's Android competes at the high end as well.

The major difference, in my mind, is that one is very clearly a big data company. So one realistic option if that is important, which it is to many people and organizations.
 
I'd say Google's Android competes at the high end as well.

Actually, Apple only compete in the mid to low end since they have nothing comparable to Galaxy Note 8. And, iPhones with 750p resolution compete with $50 720p Android phones.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: fermat-au
There goes the free fall of iPhone market share from here on, since there are no other targets for the phone industry (all using Android) to take on. In a battle of "one against everyone else", the "one" eventually loses, ALWAYS!
 
Not saying its accurate or true, but haven't there been studies that show it only costs Apple around 300$ or so to make an iPhone? They could sell it at 600$ and still make a decent profit, they aren't exactly strapped for cash are they?
There have been no "studies". There are people who for some reason think they have to figure out how much the parts in an iPhone cost, but it's all estimates.

The "$300" is for a bag full of parts in a factory in China. That's not what it costs to make an iPhone. That's not what it costs to bring an iPhone into a store and sell it. Selling doesn't come for free. Have you ever heard of warranty, that thing where the manufacturer has to pay out when things go wrong? There are plenty of cost that you are not thinking about.
[doublepost=1519415749][/doublepost]
There goes the free fall of iPhone market share from here on, since there are no other targets for the phone industry (all using Android) to take on. In a battle of "one against everyone else", the "one" eventually loses, ALWAYS!
We've seen how it worked in the computer market: _Nobody_ tried competing with Apple, they all competed with each other. Because everyone knew that if they tried to build computers that would compete with Apple, they would lose market share against a dozen PC manufacturers. Apple just watched, while PC profits dropped to zero. Result: Apple has a ten percent market share and a 50% profit share.

You know what Samsungs problem is (apart from having to get their management out of jail): If they try to go against Apple, they have dozens of competitors who will eat the other end of their business. Result: Apple makes all the profit. Android phones are all the same, they are only distinguished by price, so the prices drop, the profits drop. Apple keeps its profits up.
 
How is it one company sells 217 million phones can make more than an entire eco system that has sold over 1.32 billion phones?
 
Actually, Apple only compete in the mid to low end since they have nothing comparable to Galaxy Note 8. And, iPhones with 750p resolution compete with $50 720p Android phones.
I went I said Apple only compete at the high end, I was mostly referring to price, but you make a good point. It is amazing how greater phone you can buy for $50 to $200. Android is the OS that enables this.
 
Duopoly? I guess the tiny home user Linux share means everything is fine on the desktop front with just Windows 10 and the Mac. It's a triopoly, after all.
 
Do you think that Apple only competes in the high end because they are incapable of competing in the majority of real user consumer space? We can't beat Microsoft so lets increase the price of iPhones (despite the fact we are 15% and losing to Google)
If Apple wanted to compete with less expensive phone, they could, and they do some extent with the SE. In terms of profits it is better for Apple to stay in the high end (and maybe touch on the mid range) if a consumer is going to but an iPhone it is better for Apple if that is an $800 rather than a $600 phone. While Apple would have the capability to make a $300-$400, I don't think Apple could have a <$200, that is not their forte and certainly not their 'Brand'.
[doublepost=1519429312][/doublepost]
I'd say Google's Android competes at the high end as well.

The major difference, in my mind, is that one is very clearly a big data company. So one realistic option if that is important, which it is to many people and organizations.
There are many manufactures making high-end phones running Android, Google with the Pixel, Samsumg S8 and Note etc. The point is that all the mid to low end phones that the majority of the world's population can afford all run Android, none iOS.

While Google does collect significant amounts of data from Android users, they are open about what they collect and this data allows for better products in many cases. The user does have significant control over their data. In fact some of the most secure phone are Android phones. It seems President Obama used a locked down Samsung Galaxy S4.
 
While Google does collect significant amounts of data from Android users, they are open about what they collect and this data allows for better products in many cases. The user does have significant control over their data. In fact some of the most secure phone are Android phones. It seems President Obama used a locked down Samsung Galaxy S4.
Security and useability are two different things.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/us-army-android-phones-iphones/
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.