I could only find smart phone data going back to 2013. Fewer than 35% of adults, or about 25% of the population had a smart phone then in the United States, and the US had the heaviest cell phone penetration. If you went worldwide, I would guess that 25% would be far, far fewer considering the US makes up only 5% of the world population. If I were to guess, it would be fewer than 5% who had smart phones and that's in 2013. Going back to 2007, it would be significantly fewer than that.Prove me wrong by beyond saying the same.![]()
Uh no. Apple is already making moves with pulling out of Taiwan to build exclusively in China. They’re not going to leave China. They’re funneling half a trillion dollars to build exclusively in China. Apple is all in on the Chinese front. They’re not going anywhere. Apple is all about profits. If you think Apple would pull out of China if they overtake Taiwan, you really aren’t paying attention.I think they're just positioning themselves, & probably with the encouragement of the Chinese Gov't, for when China makes a move on Taiwan.
At that point, Apple will (need to ?) pull out of China.
And the Chinese Gov't knows that's a possibility, & will want some local company to point to keep it's High-End consumers satisfied.
Russia & China have teamed up, that should be obvious to anyone who follows world news !
Russia will first make a play for the Ukraine, & then shortly after, China will make a play for Taiwan.
Red Storm Rising ! ...
I could only find smart phone data going back to 2013. Fewer than 35% of adults, or about 25% of the population had a smart phone then in the United States, and the US had the heaviest cell phone penetration. If you went worldwide, I would guess that 25% would be far, far fewer considering the US makes up only 5% of the world population. If I were to guess, it would be fewer than 5% who had smart phones and that's in 2013. Going back to 2007, it would be significantly fewer than that.
It's easy to not find data when not finding it supports their argument.Really? A simple google search provided me with RIM’s yearly sales going back to 2000….
You are literally guessing….not sure how to respond to that.
Yeah I always laugh when I see this. I had a Treo 650 two years before the iPhone came out. Very much a smartphone and the UI was similar to iOS in a few ways.Apple did not basically invent the smartphone.
Yeah I always laugh when I see this. I had a Treo 650 two years before the iPhone came out. Very much a smartphone and the UI was similar to iOS in a few ways.
The iPhone was an evolution of the smartphone, and the one that finally went fully mainstream. But smartphones themselves predate the iPhone by a few years.
You have even less data. Yes, the last portion was a guess since smart phone penetration data only went back to 2013 where only 35% of American adults had smart phones. Accounting for age, that puts it around 25% of Americans in 2013. I even said going back earlier were extrapolations. You have no percentage data at all. How much did RIM account for world-wide? Sounds like your $200 million figure is pretty tiny for 2006 and is pretty meaningless. What is that, 1 million phones worldwide for a population of around 6 billion back then, or about 0.016%? Assume Microsoft did the same. That's a whopping 0.032% worldwide? That's not that many phones. Apple sells over 200 million PHONES a year, let alone $200 million. I would define a fraction of a percent as niche.Really? A simple google search provided me with RIM’s yearly sales going back to 2000….
You are literally guessing….not sure how to respond to that.
You have even less data. Yes, the last portion was a guess since smart phone penetration data only went back to 2013 where only 35% of American adults had smart phones. Accounting for age, that puts it around 25% of Americans in 2013. I even said going back earlier were extrapolations. You have no percentage data at all. How much did RIM account for world-wide? Sounds like your $200 million figure is pretty tiny for 2006 and is pretty meaningless. What is that, 1 million phones worldwide for a population of around 6 billion back then, or about 0.016%? Assume Microsoft did the same. That's a whopping 0.032% worldwide? That's not that many phones. Apple sells over 200 million PHONES a year, let alone $200 million. I would define a fraction of a percent as niche.
You're not even providing numbers beyond a revenue number. $200 million worldwide is a pretty tiny figure. Even you have to admit that $200 million is not very many phones. It's proof positive not many people bought smart phones in 2006 if RIM only did $200 million. The funny thing is you're trying to die on a hill over the definition of niche. Where's your threshold on where niche ends? 1%? 2%? 20%? 50%? For me, your figures prove my point that it's significantly less than 1% worldwide. That, my friend, is very niche.No, I have data. Period. I can provide more but why bother if you are just going to guess?
You are choosing a weird hill to die on my friend.
I could only find smart phone data going back to 2013. Fewer than 35% of adults, or about 25% of the population had a smart phone then in the United States, and the US had the heaviest cell phone penetration. If you went worldwide, I would guess that 25% would be far, far fewer considering the US makes up only 5% of the world population. If I were to guess, it would be fewer than 5% who had smart phones and that's in 2013. Going back to 2007, it would be significantly fewer than that.
200 million is tiny compared to today, sure. But it’s not insignificant. And that is just ONE player in the space back then.You're not even providing numbers beyond a revenue number. $200 million worldwide is a pretty tiny figure. Even you have to admit that $200 million is not very many phones. It's proof positive not many people bought smart phones in 2006 if RIM only did $200 million. The funny thing is you're trying to die on a hill over the definition of niche. Where's your threshold on where niche ends? 1%? 2%? 20%? 50%? For me, your figures prove my point that it's significantly less than 1% worldwide. That, my friend, is very niche.
If a company other than Apple can produce a true iPhone equivalent, that’s a remarkable achievement and milestone already.16 billion is a lot of money to spend on what will be surely nothing more than an iPhone knock off
According to IDC research, smartphones accounted for 5.1% of all mobile phones shipped in the U.S. in 2006. That percentage more than doubled in 2007.
The three biggest smartphone brands in the U.S. in Q1 2008 were BlackBerry (which dominated with around 45% of the market), followed by Apple (19%) and then Palm.
They do copy a lot, but they also create some innovative products.Xiaomi needs Apple, or else who will they copy ?
Wouldn’t matter if that’s the only option, would it?Chinese companies won't see a penny from me
But the software is miles away still.
Thank you!According to IDC research, smartphones accounted for 5.1% of all mobile phones shipped in the U.S. in 2006. That percentage more than doubled in 2007.
The three biggest smartphone brands in the U.S. in Q1 2008 were BlackBerry (which dominated with around 45% of the market), followed by Apple (19%) and then Palm.
When their hardware is significantly ahead of Apple.When will Xiaomi learn that hardware is not everything.
Their endeavour will take a long time, and by then, China would have had the time to restructure the auxiliary supply chain to withstand a Huawei-level US sanction. It would take about 10 years from 2018.I hope he realises that if this endeavour gets vaguely successful, the US will find a reason to nip it in the bud. We'll hear about links with the Chinese army, corruption, whatever and Xiaomi would end up going the way of ZTE and/or Huawei in no time. Stay humble, stay longer.
Remember Apple was created to take on IBM?Jokes aside, setting up a company with a mantra or mission statement of destroying another company is a recipe for failure. The problem with Xiaomi is they're not even sure what their raison d'etre is to begin with beyond making money. Start with Why as Simon Sinek would say.