Slashdot Mirror

PC sales began leveling off in the late 1990s, more steeply after 2000. Long before smartphones and tablets.

What happened was Intel and AMD ran headfirst into physics. Prior to 2000, CPU clock speeds had been doubling roughly every 18 months. But the power a processor needs increases non-linearly with frequency. Past about 3 GHz (roughly 2002), CPUs began to require exorbitant amounts of additional power for little gains in clock speed.

Consequently, the rate of clock speed increases nearly stalled after 2002 (at a bit above 3 GHz). Before 2000, each new gen of Intel CPU roughly doubled performance. Today, each new gen only nets about a 5%-15% performance improvement, and most of that has been due to improvements in parallel processing (more cores, speculative execution, hyperthreading, all the goodies which made the news last year as avenues for new exploits).

Up til about 20002, software makers had been counting on increased CPU performance to support the new features they were adding. They relied on people upgrading their PCs to be able to run the latest version of their software. Now that an upgraded PC was barely faster than the PC it replaced, software makers were forced to do something they'd given little thought to in the past - optimize.

You really wonder why they would turn this down? There was no reason not to provide some mobile processors whilst getting cost coverage from Apple. Was Apple just negotiating too hard for them to justify? I would make a somewhat informed guess that they got told to back off by Microsoft believing that Windows Mobile could outrun Apple. There used to be lists of partners destroyed by Microsoft (like this list). I wonder if they will have to be updated with Intel?

The funny thing is that Intel has a strong history of involvement with both Linux and other alternative operating systems. They had plenty of RISK experience from which they could have built much lower power processors. They could have been very strong in this field. There must have been some strategic decision to avoid it, very like Nokia's strategic decision to avoid Android.

http://www.asymco.com/2018/02/...

Dideu argues the average life of a cellphone in large part represents the satisfaction of the user with that device. And in particular, the long life of each Apple device represents the substantial satisfaction of the great majority of users of those devices. So if Apple makes money from the use of any iPhone in their Services and app sales, Apple doesn't see this as the problem that a handset maker such as Samsung sees it.

He quotes Deming:

Dr. Edward Deming once said that the numbers that best define a company are two factors that do not appear on any financial statement. These factors are the value of a satisfied customer and the value of a dissatisfied customer. These factors must be multiplied by every other number in a financial statement in order to assess the prospects of the business. A high satisfaction leads to repeat purchases and referrals, growing the business; while a low satisfaction leads to ending relationships and a repulsion of potential new customers.

Heck, Apple is so embarrassed by their smartwatch sales numbers

I find that hard to believe. Horace Dedieu of Asymco estimates that Apple is now the biggest watchmaker in the world, overtaking Rolex during the last quarter of 2017.

http://www.asymco.com/2017/09/...

Reminds me more of Microsofts previous "strategic" partner Nokia. Or was it Microsoft's previous "strategic" partner Sendo?

I assume someone last time pointed out that itunes music managed to make something of a profit despite music piracy being really really really easy.

Most consumers don't pirate. A lot of those of us who do tend to do it less when paying is an option. When I pirate, it's entirely because of extra hoops I have to jump through like having to sign up for cable to watch HBO to watch game of thrones, or "no you have to go to the movie theater to watch that movie you want to watch or wait a few months."

Some people will pirate even given other options. But paranoia about that tiny segment of the consumer population isn't justified and is a stupid reason not to do this.

- Feeling that Apple skewed the entire company to music and phones, which may be where the money is but not what I want.

http://www.asymco.com/2016/11/02/wherefore-art-thou-macintosh/

Apple reached a top five position in the ranking of PC vendors. This was achieved for the first time only this year, far along in the evolution of the market.

With about $23 billion in revenues per year, Apple places among the top four PC vendors in terms of revenue.

With an estimated $5.5 billion in operating margin Apple is the most profitable PC vendor, capturing over 60% of the available PC hardware profits. The product has retained an average selling price of over $1200 for at least a decade. At the same time the average pricing of Personal Computers has more than halved.

Although volumes have fallen for three quarters, the product grew volumes and sales for 22 out of 29 quarters. As a result, volumes almost doubled in eight years.

"No, this was just mismanagement by the LG guys." FTFY

I don't know. CyanogenMod was actually doing pretty well before MS came along. Seems more like "Oprah's" money poisoned the well.

This is hardly a surprise, no company properly survives partnering with Microsoft. Lists of past Microsoft partners were passed around when Nokia did it (there was a much more extensive one but I can't find it)

I think this is not only because Microsoft is incompetent or bad, it's probably not even mainly because they set out to destroy their partners. It is because Microsoft is, and always has been a slightly corrupt and amoral organisation. If you wanted a partner to develop your business you would find anybody else. When you see a company choosing to partner with Microsoft it either shows that somebody is trying to cash out before the business goes bad (like Linkedin I think) there's someone really criminally corrupt in charge (probably the Nokia case?) or that the people in charge haven't been following up on the history and haven't done their due diligence (almost certainly the case of parts of Nokia's board). Any one of these things is a bad sign for the future of a company.

Smarter people than us don't think that.

http://www.asymco.com/2016/03/...

Apple's problem is that it is a premium company who doesn't have access to AMOLED panels (I guess Samsung Displays would probably sell to them, but then they end up dependent on them for a key component again).

Doesn't have access or doesn't want the technology? I think that one does not mean the other. Considering the lengths that Apple would go through to acquire technology like loaning suppliers capital for business expansions, I think that if Apple wanted AMOLED panels, they could get them.

"There are some hard lessons about the dangers of cooperation that are strongly in the memories of these companies," says John Morgan. "Something that makes partnering harder, even when it might make economic sense to do so."

I can only think of Microsoft and its failed partnerships.

Also, it's a bit of a 90s way to measure Hollywood revenue to look at "box office" sales.

So? He was only comparing the numbers Apple said they paid out. Even ignoring Android, that doesn't include ad income not from iAds (which is only a small part of app-ad revenue), nor any other income related to apps, like merchandise - Apple sees shit from sales of Angry Birds paraphernalia - or services or subscriptions not sold as in-app purchases.

Anyway, just look at the chart, and tell me what you think it will look like next year: http://www.asymco.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Screen-Shot-2015-01-22-at-1-22-11.30.06-AM.png

Not that being Apple has done that much good for their computing platform. They are still the same marginal also-ran that they have been since before Linux ever started.

Last year, the Mac took 45% of all profits in the PC market and earnt an average 19% operating margin on its Mac sales.

In comparison, it was 4% for Dell and less than that for HP, Lenovo, and Acer.

Pretty good for a "marginal also-ran" if you ask me.

source

Oh, Apple is far and a way the most profitable manufacturer in the PC market. It makes more money from Mac sales than Dell, HP. Lenovo, Asus, and Acer make from all their WinPC sales combined.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/30697024/asymcopcshare2012.png
http://www.asymco.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Screen-Shot-2013-04-16-at-4-16-4.16.46-PM-620x587.png

(all stats from Asymco)

But the dominating the PC market is dominating a market that doesn't have a future. Or rather, not a big one.

Huh? The problem is, he killed Symbian at a time when is was still highly profitable and had increasing sales (but not market share). Don't spread the myth that Nokia was already failing when he took over. This is not true and the numbers speak a clear language. And yes, the had a replacement for Symbian already working: Meego. Switching to windows phone - a system already failing on the market - was the least sensible thing to do. And guys, please don't rate things insightful just because it sounds sensible. Actual numbers cleary disagree. Nokia smartohone sales:
http://www.asymco.com/2013/04/18/lumia-is-the-light-visible/

Quartely earnings reports:
http://www.nokia.com/global/about-nokia/investors/financials/reports/results---reports/

I think they are finally admitting that OSX has been a failure.

http://www.asymco.com/2013/04/16/escaping-pcs/

Highest average revenue per PC sold: Apple
Highest operating margin percentage: Apple
Highest operating margin per PC shipped: Apple
Highest profit from PC sales: Apple
Percentage of worldwide PC-industry profit going to Apple: 45% (second place: Dell, 13%)

Note: figures do not include sales of devices running iOS. That's just OS X.

Yep, failure.

If this is true then it should follow that....

Company that is most obviously ripping off its customers by charging and unnecessary premium just to drive up revenue and margin: Apple.

The fact that people still want to buy the most expensive things just to have the most expensive things is unreal.

Will someone please explain to me what the 95% of apple user (I am talking desktops and laptops here) that surf the internet, check facebook, and send email need a computer that is 3 times the price it needs to be. http://xkcd.com/934/

I think they are finally admitting that OSX has been a failure.

http://www.asymco.com/2013/04/16/escaping-pcs/

Highest average revenue per PC sold: Apple
Highest operating margin percentage: Apple
Highest operating margin per PC shipped: Apple
Highest profit from PC sales: Apple
Percentage of worldwide PC-industry profit going to Apple: 45% (second place: Dell, 13%)

Note: figures do not include sales of devices running iOS. That's just OS X.

Yep, failure.

No, PC sales started dropping off the quarter after the iPad was released. And have continued to go downhill ever since.

http://www.asymco.com/2013/07/18/the-pc-calamity/
http://www.asymco.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Screen-Shot-2013-07-18-at-7-18-11.16.38-AM.png

No, PC sales started dropping off the quarter after the iPad was released. And have continued to go downhill ever since.

http://www.asymco.com/2013/07/18/the-pc-calamity/
http://www.asymco.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Screen-Shot-2013-07-18-at-7-18-11.16.38-AM.png

Symbian was not dying:
http://www.asymco.com/2013/04/18/lumia-is-the-light-visible/
That does not mean that Symbian did not have problems. Despite the growth in absolute numbers, Nokia lost market share in smart phones and it was clear that Symbian would not be competive in the future. But the thing is, they had a perfectly good plan: Two meego phones were already fully developed when they announced the switch to WP 7 (and more Meego phones were in development and a tablet). With QT there was a plausible transition strategy from Symbian to Meego which would have offered developers a way to support both. Nokia would have kept full control ecosystem and the ability to do innovative things. Instead they threw everything away and switched to WP 7 although Windows Mobile/Phone was failing to capture market share for years. The Meego-based N9 was then released only in smaller markets and turned out to be an absolutely awesome phone which initially outsold the two Lumia devices, proofing that this would have been a much much better strategy. The N950 was never sold and only given to developers and another device became the Lumia 800.

Bubble, my ass.Nokia smartphone unit is loss-making since the declared Symbian phones dead and sales collapsed. Source: Nokia quartely earning reports. Exactly up to this point smartphones sales were increasing and the smart devices unit was profitable. They fired a lot of people (and the smart ones left), sold business units, and even their head quarter to stay a float. Other units like NSN are profitable which a helps. As a smartphone vendor the fall from number 1 to 10. And here a nice picture about the colllapse caused by the switch to Windows Phone: http://www.asymco.com/2013/04/18/lumia-is-the-light-visible/

Apple sure is segregated

The Mac business is doing fine.

http://www.asymco.com/2013/04/16/escaping-pcs/

I don't think the tablet market is sufficiently saturated that they're selling iPads primarily to people that already own one, yet. (You may be interested in this piece, which shows through stats just how saturated the iPhone market is, though.)

They would have decided two years ago.

Maybe there's a reason Apple's capital spending has increased dramatically in the last 2-3 years.

http://www.asymco.com/2012/12/11/the-new-age-of-capital-intensity/

They do. They're spending a LOT more capital in the last couple of years.

http://www.asymco.com/2012/12/11/the-new-age-of-capital-intensity/

The point is, Samsung has done NOTHING but gain on the iPhone. It would be ignorant not to acknowledge that fact.

No it wouldn't, it'd be ignorant to say "Samsung has done NOTHING but gain on the iPhone".

Samsung has roughly doubled it's mobile phone since 2007. Apple has grown it's market share nearly every quarter since 2007.

Samsung's market share growth has come at the expense of nearly every manufacturer OTHER THAN Apple. That's the truth. Nokia, RIM, Motorola, Sony Ericsson. These are the companies that have had their market share taken by BOTH Samsung and Apple.

http://www.asymco.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Screen-Shot-2012-11-14-at-11-14-3.15.16-PM.png

Far from Apple being the big kahuna that upstart Samsung has bettered with it's Galaxy SIII. The Galaxy S III is just another in a long line of phones that Samsung has been making since long before Apple was even in the business. And yet, for the one market sector that Apple plays in - the premium phone - Apple does better than Samsung.

Samsung's visibility has a lot more to do with the fact that they spend gajillions of dollars on advertising than with any of the lawsuits they're involved in. Hell, they're spending more than Apple, HP, Dell, and Microsoft combined when it comes to advertising. And then, on top of that they're spending about the same amount again on sales promotions. Billions upon billions of dollars.

Bears repeating

...as well as Increased visibility of Samsung.

Samsung's visibility has a lot more to do with the fact that they spend gajillions of dollars on advertising than with any of the lawsuits they're involved in. Hell, they're spending more than Apple, HP, Dell, and Microsoft combined when it comes to advertising. And then, on top of that they're spending about the same amount again on sales promotions. Billions upon billions of dollars.

If you're a company that wants visibility, that's one way you can do it. That's how they did it. It's working for them. You'd have to willfully choose to ignore the obvious if you're seriously suggesting that these lawsuits that only niche communities are even aware of and concerned with are in any way responsible for a significant increase in the visibility of Samsung.

As with many other things, the key differencee is that Apple did them well. (Scroll down to the last graph in the story for the best picture.) Believe me -- Google is hoping to copy Apple, not Gateway. Or Sony. Or Microsoft. If this is even happening at all.

As with many other things, the key differencee is that Apple did them well. (Scroll down to the last graph in the story for the best picture.) Believe me -- Google is hoping to copy Apple, not Gateway. Or Sony. Or Microsoft. If this is even happening at all.

Just look at the iPad, tablets certainly weren't new or innovative but it was Apple marketing that made them the "must have" device.

Ironically Samsung's marketing budget dwarfs Apple's marketing budget. It's about 10 times as much.
http://www.asymco.com/2012/11/29/the-cost-of-selling-galaxies/
And yet Apple is more successful than Samsung.

The truth is Apple is successful because, uniquely in the tech business, they value design above everything.

âoeMost people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like. Thatâ(TM)s not what we think design is. Itâ(TM)s not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.â
-- Steve Jobs.

Maybe not forever. But it is simply a lie that Symbian was failing.
Sales by platform just before Symbian was killed.

Fandroid. A) it doesn't matter whether Google or Apple is on top, so long as both have decent market share to foster their own ecosystems. Those are the two competitors we should be talking about. B) Samsung hasn't reported phone *sales* since mid 2011. They report units shipped. The two are different. References? (http://www.tgdaily.com/mobility-brief/57565-samsung-will-no-longer-report-phone-sales-numbers). They're very secretive now about what's sitting in the channel vs in consumer hands. The Apple v Samsung case is pretty illustrative of why. (http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/08/10/apple-samsung-us-sales-numbers/ and http://www.asymco.com/2012/08/10/samsungs-basis-of-competition/). Apples growth likely has already peaked, at least in the western markets. However, to say that Samsung is wiping the floor with them is disingenuous at best.

Yeah right. Might want to get some facts.

http://www.asymco.com/2012/10/26/apples-growth-scorecard-for-third-quarter-2012/

There's a whole lot of revenue AND earnings numbers that are greater than 100%.

There's been less of it lately, so Apple CLEARLY deserves a PE of 11.5. (Dripping in sarcasm there)

So the only thing that makes this quarter below average is the fact that everybody was waiting for the iPad Mini - and that seems to be a huge success in the following quarter.

Yeah right. Might want to get some facts.

http://www.asymco.com/2012/10/26/apples-growth-scorecard-for-third-quarter-2012/

There's a whole lot of revenue AND earnings numbers that are greater than 100%.

There's been less of it lately, so Apple CLEARLY deserves a PE of 11.5. (Dripping in sarcasm there)

Stocks go up on profit. And profit does not grow only with revenue. You can also deduct spendings. That's how big businesses work. They spend enormously for marketing, branding, hire unnecessary amount of people, to build a brand.

Not sure if you're talking about Apple or competition. Apple spends way less on marketing, offers no incentives, than, say, Samsung, which has has virtually bought their market share dollar-for-sale. http://www.asymco.com/2012/12/05/the-mystery-of-samsung-electronics-sga/

During the quarter, Nokia sold 4.4 million Lumia smartphones - a significant rise from the previous quarter, which featured sales of 2.9 million Lumia devices

So they got a 50% improvement going from a non-Holiday quarter to a Holiday quarter, and have sold 14 million total since the Lumia line was released. While Symbian year-over-year sales figures went from 28.3M/quarter two years ago to 19M/quarter last year to 2.2M this past quarter.

Regardless about whether you consider a minor bump for the biggest shopping season of the year "significant" or "selling well", it's clear that Lumia is not carrying the volume it needs to to make up for the death of Symbian.

It's possible Nokia could pull out of a sales dive like this, although no phone company to date ever has.

http://www.asymco.com/2013/01/10/getting-to-know-the-meaning-of-sisu/

Nice. I have a nice article with pretty pictures, too.

Nice. I have a nice article with pretty pictures, too.

It's market share dropped while it's sales increased. The smartphone market is growing at an amazing pace, so I wouldn't consider that a horrible thing. Here's an analysis from Deidu: http://www.asymco.com/2012/11/05/the-late-smartphone-adopter-paradox/

In the medium term, the open source Android is largely superior compared to the proprietary shit doled out by Apple and Microsoft

Says all the (non-samsung) phone manufacturers going bankrupt by going to Android. HTC, LG, Sony, Lenovo, Motorola, ZTE, etc.

http://www.asymco.com/2012/11/14/google-vs-samsung/

HTC now is (as far as I know) now the only company with full access to apple's patents.

Microsoft and Apple have a full patent cross license going back to, I believe, 1994. They are in cahoots on this whole anti-Android campaign.

HTC ran out of fight, is all. They sold out and now will find themselves following Nokia on the road to hell. When they get there they'll get to meet Microsoft's other mobile partners.

Microsoft always sold more on the desktop, even today Microsoft machines outnumber Apple machines 20:1

I daresay Apple machines outnumber Microsoft machines by a factor closer to infinity because there's no such thing as a Microsoft machine. Microsoft isn't - yet - a hardware manufacturer. If you're talking about operating-system-software licences then Microsoft peaked in 2004 with a Windows:Mac ratio of about 56:1. Now, if you include iOS as an operating system, the ratio has dropped to about 2:1.

See:

http://www.asymco.com/2012/07/04/the-building-and-dismantling-of-the-windows-advantage/

As an android maker they could be losing money like crazy *and* not getting a cheque from microsoft.

The cheque from Microsoft is a joke. According to Asymco, "The foregone revenues from Symbian (assuming they had been able to maintain the decline to the level of 150 million units that they had originally forecast) would be about $9 billion. This means that had Nokia not knifed Symbian and had sold the shortfall units at an average price of $200 they would have received an additional $9 billion in sales. Furthermore, assuming a margin of 33% for those units, Nokia received from Microsoft one third from of what she gave up for exclusivity."

And we're not even taking about Android here, it's about Symbian.

Except for also LG, Huawai, ZTE, Sony, and many others.

No. No they aren't

Microsoft offered a very sweet deal? Really?

"This means that had Nokia not knifed Symbian and had sold the shortfall units at an average price of $200 they would have received an additional $9 billion in sales. Furthermore, assuming a margin of 33% for those units, Nokia received from Microsoft one third from of what she gave up for exclusivity." Source: http://www.asymco.com/2012/10/22/nokias-price-for-exclusivity/

Horace Dediu of Asymco wrote about Nokia's situation yesterday and showed where Windows Phone phones have not filled the gap in the loss of sales for Symbian phones. He also concludes that the goal of 150 million Symbian phone sales (beginning Q1 2011) will never be reached. He's got some good thoughts on this situation.

It depends on what you mean by falling behind.

http://www.asymco.com/2012/02/03/first-apples-rank-in-mobile-phone-profitability-and-revenues/

It seems that Apple is increase it's share of the smart phone market.