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.
iPhone Market Share Expected to Hit 68% in the United States by 2017
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Poor RIM
That's interesting. I wonder if Android share includes tablets or not.
Android numbers most likely contain tablets hotspots Camars anything that has a android operating system. Right now the numbers all all over the place for android there are just too many variables. But if you go by web usage you get a better idea of what the numbers really are. Unless people would android phones just don't use the web which is kind of ridiculous, one would figure a bigger screen more usage
----------
So you're saying it's a good business practice to sell almost at cost with very little profit?
It's really quite predicatable at how Apple would get there.
Every iPhone is an iteration of the previous one. They've managed to hold off the competition with incremental improvements.
A larger display will finally give users what they've been clamouring for. Those who've switched to other platforms because of the iPhone's smaller size will
migrate back and effectively dominate the smartphone market in the US.
Every iPhone is an iteration of the previous one. They've managed to hold off the competition with incremental improvements.
A larger display will finally give users what they've been clamouring for. Those who've switched to other platforms because of the iPhone's smaller size will
migrate back and effectively dominate the smartphone market in the US.
So you're saying that SMARTPHONE stats includes tablets and other devices? Do you have any proof of that?
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that not having a high profit is not my problem as a consumer and if a company is not losing money they can afford to do that while they want
----------
Why smartphone stats would include tablets?
Yes a lot of the times when they compare operating systems android includes everything but not all the time and as for evidence I have just about as accurate as anybody else on this forum, for all I know they could be lying to all of us but I can only go by what I read and pick out the reputable sources. There is no one on this forum that can say for sure. And the most accurate idea I can possibly have would be looking around from day to day at what devices people Using. it's a lot easier in New York City because you you're exposed to a lot more people.
What are you guys talking about? iPhones have been competitively priced for years now. It may be a bit more than other top of the line phones for it's in the same ballpark. And the lowest model iPhone has been free for years now. Obviously these are with contracts, but thats how most people use phones - on contract. So the price complaints are unwarranted.
So much word just to say that you just made up the claim. And then you call others biased? Funny
It may become your problem if it affects long term support for your device for example.
He starts 2010 because "we did not have data on penetration from 2% to 65%, updated on a monthly basis, for one particular market, with all participant shares identified". He plots the actuals of all the OS's that he has available. This is based on observed data ... the focus on the "what happened" compared to a proven adoption curve, the "how" is up for discussion (go to his site). One point it seems like it depicts is that the total smartphone adoption is following the standard adoption curve when you sum up all the major OS's
My guess is if data is extended back to 2008, it'll still sum to the front (head) of the bell curve, since the market was comparatively small in 2008/2009. This can probably be shown, but not month over month (the total smart phone penetration in the U.S. wasn't over 15% as shown in his first data points).
.
Last edited:
Could be, the $15 off they're currently offering for BYOD is a net price increase over the subsidy model. Dumping subsidies altogether is the final step in that progression.
Finance contracts aren't subject to outrageous telecom taxes, so at least that part is good for consumers if they can get no-interest deals like Motorola's Moto X offer.
Dude, way to spin history. Before the iPhone people were rocking BB's and they were not touch screen. BB were by far the most popular smartphone, basically the only smartphone in the public eye. I worked in media and entertainment. Everyone had BBs. What imaginary touchscreens that everyone was using are you talking about? BlackBerry Storm (touch) was 2008. HTC touch was 2007, was terrible, and flopped.
Why is it so hard to give Apple its due. The iPhone ushered in a new age of smartphones. Just like the iPod ushered in a new era of MP3 players. It's just like people always start with the Palm Pilot existed before the iPhone. But they always forget the Apple Newton was years before the Pilot.
The iPhone was certainly a success when it came out even if it was only on AT&T. Number proved it. And even with a small number of apps it changed the whole face of the smartphone industry.
As for modern phones, if you can't say that the iPhone jump started the industry you're just being a hater. Even the competition acknowledges what Apple did. So this article is pretty much on point.
Touch screen did not define what a smartphone was.
Blackberries for example, were not originally touch screen oriented devices. Yet they managed to have full keyboards, an OS that was customizable. An ecosystem that actually did allow for the loading of applications from external sources. Push messaginng using various different sources (email being their claim to fame).
There were other touch screen smart phones around then to. from the Palm and Windows based devices that again, allowed for applications to be installed. had messaging services and large touch areas to interact with the device.
The iPhone absolutely changed the market by finally making it "cool" to have these deviecs. But they were not the first smartphone to market. Nor were they first Smartphone to feature Application expandibility, nor cameras, nor touch screens, nor media playback functionality, nor bluetooth... the list goes on and on. the first iPhone wasn't really the "first" for most of it's tech. it was just the device that seemed to do it the Best for the time.
Worldwide smartphone sales during the iPhone's first year of sale (3Q07 - 3Q08) were over 134 million.
Pretty much forever, since they're selling above cost.
What you're missing, is that Apple and Google have totally different business models, and the difference is critical.
Apple DEPENDS ON THEIR HARDWARE SALES to make a profit. Google DOES NOT.
Over half of Apple's income is now from iOS devices. On the other hand, Google even makes money off whatever Apple sells.
Web usage is often useless for android because many set the user agent string to something else. For example my android tablet is set as iPad user agent. Many use Desktop.
For Google it is ... at least for the time being. Google wins (from a money perspective) if more people uses the internet more and more, so it wants everyone on earth to have an internet enabled phone to use their services (search, maps, etc).
I believe, the Nexus smartphone was not a reaction to the iPhone as much as it is to the dominance of Samsung and Touchwiz (owning upwards of 50% of the Android smartphone market). So giving the Nexus away 'at near cost' helps them to maintain their OS lead and also helps to control the Android hardware makers.
.
I just picked up one of those Nokia 521 prepaid phones and its pretty decent for $61 out the door at Target (sale this week). The Nokias navigation blows the iPhone out the water and it has a removable battery, sd card and dual core processor. I personally would not ditch my Note 3 for it but its good enough for my 17 year old daughter as a Christmas gift; and she doesnt even like iPhones.
There is no way the smart phone industry will allow Apple to have that much market share. There is a price war brewing for non-contract phones and Apple does not want any part of that. These phones are getting more powerful yet cheaper as time moves forward. People are going to see that they dont need all those fancy bells and whistles from a $600 plus smartphone. And I dont believe that increasing the screen size of the iPhone while keeping the price at $650 will make any huge difference.
There is no way the smart phone industry will allow Apple to have that much market share. There is a price war brewing for non-contract phones and Apple does not want any part of that. These phones are getting more powerful yet cheaper as time moves forward. People are going to see that they dont need all those fancy bells and whistles from a $600 plus smartphone. And I dont believe that increasing the screen size of the iPhone while keeping the price at $650 will make any huge difference.
the smart phone industry does not control Apple. And you can get a 5S $27 out the door.
That could well happen in Europe anyway. Windows is over 10% and Apple is falling
http://www.gsmarena.com/kantar_worldpanel_wp_breaks_10_market_share_in_europe-news-7298.php
I'm glad that you agree that people were rocking smartphones before Apple came along, even if all you only knew about, were BBs. (Although frankly, it's close to unbelievable that an adult had never heard of a Palm Pilot by 2006, especially someone claiming they were in media. Palm Pilots were a not uncommon plot device in movies and TV shows, because everyone at least knew the name. Blackberrys, on the other hand, were more of a businessman's device back then.)
In any case, the smartphone world was MUCH larger than just RIM. Millions of people used Symbian, Palm and Windows Mobile smartphones... with or without touch.
This is not about Apple.
This is about the Forbes article author who wrote that there were "no real smartphones" before the iPhone. That was just incredibly wrong.
To say that the smartphone market started with the iPhone in 2007 is an Orwellian rewrite of history. There have been plenty of smartphones shipping in very sizable volume before Apple entered the game.
RIM was so popular before the iPhone, it was often called the "crackberry" with the dependance customers had on it for mobile email. Yes, you needed to have the right Secret Society memberships to write third party apps for RIM but it was out there for years before the iPhone.
Most notably, the HandSpring (later Palm) Treo released in the Fall of 1999, was a breakthrough product incorporating smartphone feature apps with then traditional PDA apps. Yes, the processor was slower and the screen was only 640x640 in their last release but it define what the iPhone took a shot at and destroyed.
While Palm didn't make any public announcement, many former Palm employees and industry analysis folks estimate that the first release of the iPhone cause as much as a 75% loss in market share for Palm. Palm dropped the Treo and released their day late and a dollar short Palm Pre in two hardware revisions. Later Palm became a subroutine of HP and then Samsung.
The beat goes on.
RIM was so popular before the iPhone, it was often called the "crackberry" with the dependance customers had on it for mobile email. Yes, you needed to have the right Secret Society memberships to write third party apps for RIM but it was out there for years before the iPhone.
Most notably, the HandSpring (later Palm) Treo released in the Fall of 1999, was a breakthrough product incorporating smartphone feature apps with then traditional PDA apps. Yes, the processor was slower and the screen was only 640x640 in their last release but it define what the iPhone took a shot at and destroyed.
While Palm didn't make any public announcement, many former Palm employees and industry analysis folks estimate that the first release of the iPhone cause as much as a 75% loss in market share for Palm. Palm dropped the Treo and released their day late and a dollar short Palm Pre in two hardware revisions. Later Palm became a subroutine of HP and then Samsung.
The beat goes on.
He was correct they were not smart phones. But I guess it's a matter of perception and what your personal definition of a smartphone is!
Yes, we've already figured out from all your other posts, that if Apple didn't make it, it doesn't exist in your mind.
The rest of us are discussing reality.
Speaking of which, a lot of people (including myself) have at one time or another made a comment about how Apple helped make smartphones popular. They did help, but they weren't the only factor by any means.
Smartphones were already on the way to becoming mainstream, partly because of their widespread adoption in business and partly because the carrier and cell technology was coming into the right space of capability and price. (Which is, of course, exactly why Apple decided to jump in.)
Here's a chart of total world smartphone sales, and just Apple's own sales out of that. As can be seen, sales were headed up anyway, although perhaps not as quickly.
As BGR put it in 2012, "Actually, smartphone growth has been just what was projected in 2006." What wasn't expected (and what Apple had the big hand in), was how quickly non-touch smartphones would become unpopular. Which is a bit ironic, since it looks like trackpads could make a comeback even on the iPhone.
Last edited: