Slashdot Mirror
Huawei Passes Apple For Second Place In Smartphone Shipments (venturebeat.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from VentureBeat: For the first time in seven years, Samsung and Apple have not taken the top two positions in the worldwide smartphone market. All hail Huawei. Although Samsung held onto first place -- the South Korean giant typically dominates the first three quarters of the year, with the American company winning the fourth quarter -- Huawei passed Apple for second place this part quarter. The Q2 2018 figures come from IDC (though Canalys and Strategy Analytics both agree that Huawei passed Apple in the quarter).
In the meantime, AAPL is up and up and up. I hope it keeps it up. Even if you don't like its products, ya gotta like its stock (:
It's not surprising: the iPhone X has been a disaster. Quick informal poll: anyone ever see anyone with one in the wild?
Actually, if you look at the table in the article, it looks like Huawei’s success is coming at Samsung’s and less popular Android manufacturer’s loss. Apple grew their market share and their total units sold this last year, while Samsung sold about 8 million fewer units and lost a significant amount of share.
Plus, Apple’s average selling price is way up from a year ago (as reported in their earnings call yesterday), suggesting the iPhone X is selling quite well. Which makes sense, since it was separately reported that it was the best selling smartphone in the US for the two quarters after it launched (and yes, I’ve seen a number of them in the wild). As for the phone that outsold it this last quarter? It was the iPhone 8.
Never mind the fact that AAPL is about to be the first trillion-dollar company selling basically one phone, everyone on /. is convinced they're dead.
They are all members of "The venerable order of the bee in the bonnet" and Michael Dell is their Grand Poobah.
The X is only the icing on the shit sundae. The problem runs far deeper, and if Cook doesn't get his head out of his ass (or the proverbial stick) this is not going to end well for Apple.
Jobs had it right. He created a well designed phone with a very comfortable interface that was easy to use for computer illiterates, packaged it in a perfectly fashionable form and hyped the style just enough to make the item fashionable, likable and wanted with young trend leaders. This move was awesome.
Apple still lives off this air of being fashionable, modern and usable created back then. Even though it no longer is the case for their later products. The road Cook took the company (and hence the design of the phone) down was a weird combination of the creed that removal of non-essentials should be enforced until only the "pure" function remains, while at the same time introducing flashy gimmicks nobody asked for and nobody knew how to use sensibly in the name of being progressive and innovative.
And that's the wrong approach, if you ask me.
Jobs knew that in the end, these things have to be used. He wanted to create well designed and good looking gadgets that would be useful to people so they feel good about using them and want to use them more, with the intent to convince them that this means they will have to buy the next generation, too. Cook forgot that people who can't use your gadgets won't buy the next one, no matter how good they're looking. That only works for gadgets people don't buy to actually use, like Gucci handbags. Nobody expects such an accessory to actually serve a purpose, like being able to store anything inside.
That's not the case for phones. People at least want to make phone calls with them.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That's not the case for phones. People at least want to make phone calls with them.
tbh a lot of people wouldn't miss it if their phone stopped making calls.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Dead? Far from it. But Apple is doing what MS has been doing since the 90s: Moving through inertia. The engine is off.
Juggernauts like Apple can do this. Even with no new products, Apple would still make acceptable profits for a while. Apple store, accessories, repairs and add-on sales would certainly keep the revenue going. But they would be living off products that they already designed, created, made and sold. That can keep a company the size of Apple afloat for a couple years.
After that, the Juggernaut is dead in the water. And as any oil tanker captain will tell you, getting a huge thing like that moving again takes a LOT of fuel for very, very little gain in the first couple days.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I have made that joke before, too, but yes, I'm confident they would. Some would probably notice the lack of connectivity first due to some other app (yes, making calls is just yet another app on most phones these days, go figure...) not getting a connection to some server, but one of the key features people use their phone for is still making calls.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Case in point I'm visiting family in Europe with a T-Mobile plan from the US. I get unlimited 3G speeds all over Europe for free with the plan, but I would have to pay 25 cents per minute for calls. We use FaceTime for all our calls even when in the countryside which seems to have pretty decent coverage.
Dead? Far from it. But Apple is doing what MS has been doing since the 90s: Moving through inertia. The engine is off.
Juggernauts like Apple can do this. Even with no new products, Apple would still make acceptable profits for a while. Apple store, accessories, repairs and add-on sales would certainly keep the revenue going. But they would be living off products that they already designed, created, made and sold. That can keep a company the size of Apple afloat for a couple years.
After that, the Juggernaut is dead in the water. And as any oil tanker captain will tell you, getting a huge thing like that moving again takes a LOT of fuel for very, very little gain in the first couple days.
So what game changing revolutionary new products had Huawei brought to the mobile market recently? ... or to the Tech market in general?
The X is only the icing on the shit sundae. The problem runs far deeper, and if Cook doesn't get his head out of his ass (or the proverbial stick) this is not going to end well for Apple.
Apple has more money than they can spend. Apple could put out crap for a decade and still be a fully functioning major player in world technology. Apple's finances are so strong, Cook probably couldn't sink Apple even if he deliberately set out to do just that.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
It's not surprising: the iPhone X has been a disaster. Quick informal poll: anyone ever see anyone with one in the wild? Past the first couple of weeks before they all got returned? (You can tell an iPhone X user because he's the one who has to very carefully look at his phone in order to get it to unlock.)
The interface is a disaster (turns out, removing the home button and replacing it with the scroll gesture is a really bad idea), Face ID manages to thread the needle of being too loose and too strict at the same time: any face that looks vaguely like yours CAN unlock it while there's a good chance your face WON'T unlock it on any given attempt. (Not to mention hackers figured out how to print a mask that bypasses it within two weeks.)
And then, you have the cost.
Is it any wonder sales are down? The iPhone X is a disaster any way you slice it.
The iPhone X was such a disaster that they were able to increase their phone margins and overall net income enough to lift their EPS and share price >3%. An unmitigated disaster that brought them closer to being the first trillion-dollar company in history. It's insane - they should just pull the phone entirely.
None. But they're dirt cheap and their batteries don't explode.
Yes, sadly that's enough to beat the two leading cellphone makers...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
While they have had new products that were huge successes since Jobs (AirPods, Apple Watch seems to be doing exceptionally well) the real growth of Apple's business will be in services. They sell a premium product and they have been increasing their average selling price. There are only so many people they can sell products too, there's a ceiling on that hardware growth. So now they focus on services, which is growing extremely well.
What specific indicators are you seeing that suggests Apple is only moving on inertia? Even when Jobs was alive they were not producing a completely new massively successful product every year. You had basically iPod, iPhone, iPad (which everyone on Slashdot called "a big iPhone). And that was from 2001 to 2010. Since his death in 2011 we've had: AirPods, iPad Pro, Apple Watch, Apple Music, Siri, TouchID/FaceID, etc etc. It seems to me that they are still moving forward pretty well without Jobs.
It's not surprising: the iPhone X has been a disaster.
Um, about that:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
The company's chief financial officer Luca Maestri said customers were buying costlier models, and the $US999 iPhone X was the best seller.
Apple posted third-quarter revenue of $US53.3 billion and profits of $US2.34 per share, and forecast its revenue would be between $US60 billion and $US62 billion in the fourth quarter.
So. while Huawei is selling more phones, Apple is selling more expensive phones and making more profit in the process.
you are calling TouchID a product? Seriously?
The ceiling would go a bit higher if Apple bothered to significantly update any of its hardware (beyond the iPhone) on a regular basis.
I'm in dire need of a new Mac Pro and a new MacBook Pro. I've got several thousand dollars that I'd be more than happy to hand over to Apple, provided they could bother to market replacements that I cared to buy. There may be some hope for the Mac Pro, depending on what appears in 2019. I don't know if I'll ever buy another MacBook Pro unless someone at Apple begins making rational design decisions instead of focusing on appearance, thinness, and weight alone.
Apple is very willingly turning its product line into an iPhone / Apple services monoculture. If current trends continue, sooner or later Apple will stumble in one of those two areas, and it'll be a bloodbath in the stock market. I'm just waiting for the right time to sell my Apple stock. Right now the monoculture is still on an upward trajectory (helped in large part by the even greater incompetence of the competition), but it's not going to last.
to the ground. I've had 3, but I think this one (Mate9) will be my last. Software updates...or better yet, LACK OF software updates. Still waiting for the June security patch, let alone July. Can't blame them though, the way they were treated.
Apple’s average selling price is way up from a year ago
What could possibly go wrong with that?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Is that how the brand name is pronounced?
Nice summary of the Apple story. But you need to recognize Apple's dilemma: they painted themselves into a corner. Having reached market saturation and further numerical growth cut off by the Android hordes, Apple's now has to grow the price and the amount of aftermarket money it can squeeze out of each of its misty eye followers. Either that or invent something entirely new that everybody wants, but that isn't going to happen under the Tim Cook culture.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Cook probably couldn't sink Apple even if he deliberately set out to do just that.
Watch what happens to Cook if the stock trends down.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
The iPhone X was such a disaster that they were able to increase their phone margins and overall net income enough to lift their EPS and share price >3%. An unmitigated disaster that brought them closer to being the first trillion-dollar company in history.
Outsold by Huawei now. Nothing could possibly go wrong, right?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I have always bought flagship phones in the past, but this cycle I bought a mid tier Motorola and it's awesome. It's plenty big, thin, lightweight, beautiful screen and camera, responsive, plenty of memory, not loaded with crapware, looks great. Exactly why do I need or want a flagship then?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
The X is only the icing on the shit sundae. The problem runs far deeper, and if Cook doesn't get his head out of his ass (or the proverbial stick) this is not going to end well for Apple.
How does one get their head INTO a proverbial stick?
Idiot.
Cook probably couldn't sink Apple even if he deliberately set out to do just that.
Watch what happens to Cook if the stock trends down.
They did that one time when Apple simply missed their Earnings Estimate. Cook's pay was reduced that year by about 2 MEELION dollars!
Nice summary of the Apple story. But you need to recognize Apple's dilemma: they painted themselves into a corner. Having reached market saturation and further numerical growth cut off by the Android hordes, Apple's now has to grow the price and the amount of aftermarket money it can squeeze out of each of its misty eye followers. Either that or invent something entirely new that everybody wants, but that isn't going to happen under the Tim Cook culture.
Apple hasn't achieved market saturation until Windows is at 10% and macOS at 90%, and not until Android is at 7% and iOS is at 95%.
They've got a LOT of growing left to do, even WITHOUT "The Next Big Thing".
The iPhone X was such a disaster that they were able to increase their phone margins and overall net income enough to lift their EPS and share price >3%. An unmitigated disaster that brought them closer to being the first trillion-dollar company in history.
Outsold by Huawei now. Nothing could possibly go wrong, right?
Samsung is the one that should be worried; not Apple.
So basically Huawei is also a Juggernaut is dead in the water and running on inertia
You wish. Huawei is still enjoying expontial growth driven by its value proposition at the low end. Should Apple worry? What happens to Apple's hopes for explosive growth in China?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Dead? Far from it. But Apple is doing what MS has been doing since the 90s: Moving through inertia. The engine is off.
Juggernauts like Apple can do this. Even with no new products, Apple would still make acceptable profits for a while. Apple store, accessories, repairs and add-on sales would certainly keep the revenue going. But they would be living off products that they already designed, created, made and sold. That can keep a company the size of Apple afloat for a couple years.
After that, the Juggernaut is dead in the water. And as any oil tanker captain will tell you, getting a huge thing like that moving again takes a LOT of fuel for very, very little gain in the first couple days.
Hell, Apple could STOP selling EVERY product TODAY, and keep every single employee worldwide at their desks at full salary playing games all day for about 25 YEARS before the lights would be turned-off.
That give Apple a LOT of time to come up with "The Next Big Thing".
Fortunately, in the meantime, they are selling goods and services quite handily, thank you very much. That extends that "Lights Out" time by several DECADES.
Sorry, Apple will not be going away in the lifetime of anyone who is reading this. OR their children's.
There are only so many people they can sell products too, there's a ceiling on that hardware growth.
Apple has about 10% of the Desktop Market.
Apple has about 12% of the Mobile Phone Market.
I think there is SIGNIFICANT distance to the "Ceiling" when it comes to "Hardware Growth".
Not really. First off, people seem to "want" a Mac Pro, yet it and the Mac Mini have consistently been Apple's worst selling Macs. This going back all the way. That's why they don't get much love - because the Apple-buying public doesn't give them much love. Oh sure there's a few people who love them, but it's not a big market. Not big enough to justify extensive R&D effort.
It's even worse for the Mac Pro since those are considered high end machines, everyone ends up comparing them to well, high end machines and then they're now in the league of workstation PCs by Dell and others and get compared as such.
the real growth of Apple's business will be in services
Its rapidly shaping up as the only realistic avenue remaining. After all, can Apple realistically convince its diehard cultists to fork over $2000 of their retirement savings each upgrade instead of just $1000? IPad is shrinking, Macs are the walking dead, and the smartwatch market isn't meeting expectations. But there is only so much Apple can do with its walled garden services before users start walking and governments step in with well founded monopoly concerns. Basically, Apple will try to be the new AOL, but you know where that went.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I don't know if I'll ever buy another MacBook Pro unless someone at Apple begins making rational design decisions instead of focusing on appearance, thinness, and weight alone.
And if you'd get your head out of your ass, you'd see that Apple HAS been making VERY rational design decisions with the MacBook Pros. You're just too stupid and backward to think ahead a few years, when you will still have that MacBook Pro.
I'm in dire need of a new Mac Pro and a new MacBook Pro.
Why bother? Get a Linux box and a Pixelbook. More better.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Apple’s average selling price is way up from a year ago
What could possibly go wrong with that?
Not much, actually, at least with the way that Apple is doing it.
There are lots of different ways to push average selling price (ASP) up. One way to inflate ASP is to simply raise the price points for your products. Raising ASP that way does come with a number of downsides, chief among them being the possibility of alienating price-conscious consumers who are unwilling to pay more. But that isn't what Apple did here.
Instead, what Apple did was introduce a new, higher-tier product that expanded their product line's upper end while leaving their existing price points intact for customers who had no interest in paying more. By doing it that way, they provided willing customers with the opportunity to pay Apple more money, while leaving the option open for price-conscious customers to remain at the price point that they are comfortable paying.
The quarters that followed were effectively an experiment to see whether or not there would be a significant number of willing customers, and by all indications, there have been. With ASP being way up on a YoY basis while unit sales have grown slightly, there is quite clearly a willingness among a large number of their customers to pay more than they were before. Apple recognized that willingness and cashed in on it by offering something that allowed those willing consumers to pay more, which, so far as I can see, is a perfectly valid, sustainable strategy with no significant downsides.
If later this year they introduce the iPhone X's successor at the X's current pricing while not offering a successor to the iPhone 8 line, then we'd be talking about a situation that could go wrong for them, since they'd be driving away a number of their existing customers at that point, but that's all speculation about future choices, rather than anything based in fact.
Apple hasn't achieved market saturation until Windows is at 10% and macOS at 90%, and not until Android is at 7% and iOS is at 95%.
You live on a different planet than the rest of us. On the planet we live on, Apple's smartphone market share peaked in 2009 at 48% and has declined steadily ever since, to less than 17% today. There is no reason to suppose that that trend will stop. Maybe it will eventually stabilize around 5% like the MacOS share of the PC market.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
If we look at BRANDS, Q2 is Samsung first (loosing share), Huawei second (gaining share fast) and Apple Third (ganing share slowly).
But, if we look at MANUFACTURERS, Samsung is first (losing share), BBK is second (gainig share fast), Huawei is third (gaining share fast) and Apple is fourth (gainig share slowly).
Samsung and Aplle only have their namesake brands, while Huawei has the Huawei and Honor Brands, and BBK has the Oppo, Vivo, OnePlus and other brands in their stable.
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
You've been posting Apple doom stuff since at least 2012.
Nice to hear from a fan!
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Since you are having trouble understanding what could go wrong by trying to get more money out of each customer, let me spell it out for you: Apple did not add any differentialtion to its product, but raised the price anyway. How elastic is that price, really? Bad luck for Apple if the answer turns out to be "not very". Using myself as a data point, I dropped $400 on a new phone this cycle. If I had followed my normal practice of picking up a flagship phone it would have been $1000. But the phone I got is way better than the one it replaced and I just don't perceive any important difference between this and a flagship. I mean, what's the point? Even as a fashion accessory, a nice phone stopped being a status symbol some time ago and is just something everybody has. In fact there a kind of anti-status thing going on. Flashing the Apple logo around marks you as vain, status conscious, fiscally irresponsible, etc. It's a real thing.
Well. Apple will need to sell next year's model for $1200 to match this year's revenue increase, factoring in another 1% or so of market share decline. Think that will fly? I don't.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Actually, "normal" calls is a thing I mostly do professinally. Privately I use WhatsApp, Signal or Viber for making calls. Part of the professional communication is also done with Skype.
I don't know which European country you were in but most EU countries have country wide coverage, including the most rural areas. A provider with the coverage I hear about in the US would go bancrupt because no customer would accept that.
In that case the ecosystem might start to fall apart if app developers run away. I worked for a company that did both Android and iOS development and the stupid Apple rules were a real headache.
Sorry if that was unclear, I was just referring to the "inertia" comment, generally. Certainly lots of innovation still seems to be coming from Apple.
Apple doesn't produce products that cater to the other 90%, simply based on average selling price. The damage it would do to their brand to produce "cheap" products wouldn't be worth it. They focus on high-end, high margin products. So no, there isn't that much growth left in pure marketshare.
Macs are the walking dead
Now there's some hyperbole for you. I'd be happy to take that "walking dead" off their hands (3.7M units).
Sony sold 2 million handsets and that is considered dead. I'd be happy to take that off their hands as well. Does not change the fact.
and the smartwatch market isn't meeting expectations
Who's expectations?
Apple's expectations. Apple has a big fat share price to feed and the small contribution from smartwatches is not anywhere close to enough. That market was expected to explode like the original iphone and it didn't.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Hmm, did I predict that Apple's share of the smartphone market would shrink, from as far out as six years ago? That makes me smart.
Now I'm predicting that Apple's share will shrink further. I will add the further prediction that Apple's issue with price resistance will become more serious, and cause a revenue decline by next year, in addition to losing more market share. Apple will probably increase it's app revenue, maybe even by enough to offset the revenue decline in handsets, but I wouldn't bet on that. Apple might manage to make gains in cloud services but that's a crap shoot too. From an investor's perspective Apple is looking decidely dodgy as of today.
There you go, save that one and confront me with it next year if I'm wrong. I'm not wrong.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Apple did not add any differentialtion to its product
Is the product only the hardware. Or is it the services and ecosystem surrounding it? This is why it is difficult to compare a walled garden like Apple to any other OEM.
What is the value to the average Apple user to continuing to have access to purchased app, music, chat contacts, etc?
DISCLAIMER: the lack of freedom I perceived as an Apple user led me away from them. But others still embrace them and I think the brand still draws a significant following.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Recent report is that Apple's service revenue go soar to $50B. The market is bullish on Apple's prospects on their service side. They don't need to sell devices alone to make up their revenue. Apple's business has always been a mix of hardware, software, and services.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Apple hasn't achieved market saturation until Windows is at 10% and macOS at 90%, and not until Android is at 7% and iOS is at 95%.
You live on a different planet than the rest of us. On the planet we live on, Apple's smartphone market share peaked in 2009 at 48% and has declined steadily ever since, to less than 17% today. There is no reason to suppose that that trend will stop. Maybe it will eventually stabilize around 5% like the MacOS share of the PC market.
Hardly fair.
In 2009, there really wasn't any real competition for the iPhone.
And Mac share of the "Desktop" market is over 10%, twice what you claim.
But neither of those matter to the "point of saturation" figures I was stating.
Apple doesn't produce products that cater to the other 90%, simply based on average selling price. The damage it would do to their brand to produce "cheap" products wouldn't be worth it. They focus on high-end, high margin products. So no, there isn't that much growth left in pure marketshare.
Wait until they switch to ARM for their "consumer"-level machines.
French side of the French/Belgian border, there's a village just about every other mile. To be fair I would not expect this coverage anytime soon in Montana, but California could do much better. Please stay away from national parks, one of the reasons I love these places is because it is impossible for me to check on work and as such I can truly disconnect.
You live on a different planet than the rest of us. [businessinsider.com] On the planet we live on, Apple's smartphone market share peaked in 2009 at 48% and has declined steadily ever since, to less than 17% today.
That's what happens when you look at numbers without turning your brain on.
You can divide the phone market into "smartphones" and "feature phones". You can also divide the phone market into "expensive phones" and "cheap phones". In 2009, "smartphones" and "expensive phones" was mostly the same market; Apple had 48% in either market. In 2018, feature phones are mostly gone. We now have lots and lots of cheap smartphones, and a few expensive ones. With all the cheap phones moving from the "feature phone" to "smartphone" market, of course Apple is losing share. But if you look at "expensive phones", Apple has a _huge_ part of that, probably 60%.
Apples market share increased you fucking stupid dumbass.
Wow, you sound just like an Apple asshole. But the dumbass is you. In 2009 Apple's share of the smartphone market was 48%, today it is 17%. Thanks for playing.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Hardly fair. In 2009, there really wasn't any real competition for the iPhone.
It's more than fair. iPhone's market slide looks way worse when compared to Android alone, instead of including RIM.
Android certainly had to compete, but it didn't just compete, it slaughtered. Why? Three big factors: more value for money; Google brand was more more trusted than Apple; Google's services such as maps and email were better than Apple's. All three remain in effect today,
And Mac share of the "Desktop" market is over 10%, twice what you claim.
I doubt it. Mac, 5.03%
Try to post without the insults, ok, to avoid being called out as the clown you come across as by not being able to support your argument after heaving out a lame ad hominem.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
if you look at "expensive phones", Apple has a _huge_ part of that, probably 60%
I'm not sure exactly what the share is in that sector, but it's not as high as that. Samsung's and Google's phones are expensive too, and so are all the other flagships. But that is nothing to crow about, rather it's a vulnerability. The days of phone as status symbol are slipping into history, and Apple's innovation stream dried up, weakening the brand. I'm having trouble seeing how Apple positions itself as a luxury brand going forward.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Hey retard.[sic] Apples market share when[sic] yup[sic] not down.
I left your gratuitous insult in, it's a fitting testament to the Apple mentality. In 2009 Apple's share of the smartphone market was 48%, today it is 17%. Six years from now, what? 5% similar to the MacOS share of the PC market?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
That's not the case for phones. People at least want to make phone calls with them.
tbh a lot of people wouldn't miss it if their phone stopped making calls.
If I couldn't get phone calls, how would I ever talk to my parents? Honestly, I checked and the only people I've had to use my phone to talk to in the last year were my parents and then one call each from my girlfriend and my neighbor. That excludes texting which gets used a lot, but my parents can't learn to do that. Past that, there are only robocalls. Endless robocalls. So many that our state government has simply told people not to answer the phone if they don't recognise the number.
Apple's market share in the smarphones increased this quarter, the technical term is retrace. Over a ten year period, Apple's smarphone market share declined from 48% to 17%. There is nothing to indicate that the trend will stop. Apple's share of the tablet market continued to shrink while it's share of the PC market stayed flat. Apple's stock price increased modestly on the mixed news. On balance, Apple's anemic growth makes its P/E of 19.5 unsustainable. Should that growth turn flat or negative the bloodbath will be deep and slippery.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Hardly fair. In 2009, there really wasn't any real competition for the iPhone.
It's more than fair. iPhone's market slide looks way worse when compared to Android alone, instead of including RIM.
Android certainly had to compete, but it didn't just compete, it slaughtered. Why? Three big factors: more value for money; Google brand was more more trusted than Apple; Google's services such as maps and email were better than Apple's. All three remain in effect today,
And Mac share of the "Desktop" market is over 10%, twice what you claim.
I doubt it. Mac, 5.03%
Try to post without the insults, ok, to avoid being called out as the clown you come across as by not being able to support your argument after heaving out a lame ad hominem.
Android only "wins" because of the plethora of cheap-shit low-end "giveaway" phones. If you restrict your view to the "Flagship" models, the numbers look QUITE different. And speaking of "Quite Different", I don't know where you got the 12% marketshare number for iPhones; but this source quotes it earlier this year at a whopping 51%:
https://www.investopedia.com/n...
Android only "wins" because of the plethora of cheap-shit low-end "giveaway" phones.
Android wins for multiple reasons. One of them is, if you want you can get a really cheap one and it's entirely usable, even running most games etc.
If you restrict your view to the "Flagship" models, the numbers look QUITE different.
Not really. Android beats Apple at the high end too.
And speaking of "Quite Different", I don't know where you got the 12% marketshare number for iPhones
You pulled that out of your ass. I said 17%.
but this source quotes it earlier this year at a whopping 51%
Your source is shit.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
From Jul 2012: "To be honest, Apple is more than fairly valued... assuming high margins hold up and revenue continues to increase at least 10% per year. Problem is, both those assumptions are looking doubtful from where we stand today.
Good one.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
From Jul 2012: "To be honest, Apple is more than fairly valued... assuming high margins hold up and revenue continues to increase at least 10% per year. Problem is, both those assumptions are looking doubtful from where we stand today.
Good one.
Thanks for pointing that one out. (BTW, I don't go back digging through my old posts, you must be really triggered.) Look at APPL from Aug/12 to Jun/13... straight down from $95 to $65. You would have made a mint by acting on my opinion. AAPL didn't get back to where it was until 2014.
You couldn't have done a better job of establishing my power of clairvoyance if you had tried. Now I am not predicting that AAPL is headed straight down, but that the downside risk is significant. Honestly, don't put your retirement funds there. But if you think I'm full of shit, then go ahead and load up. Couldn't happen to a nicer person.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Since you are having trouble understanding what could go wrong by trying to get more money out of each customer
Sorry, I wasn't aware we switched topics. I thought we were talking about whether or not their ASP rising over the last year is a problem for Apple. Let me check...
Apple’s average selling price is way up from a year ago
What could possibly go wrong with that?
Not much, actually, at least with the way that Apple is doing it.
Yup...that's definitely what we were talking about.
Apple did not add any differentialtion to its product, but raised the price anyway. How elastic is that price, really? Bad luck for Apple if the answer turns out to be "not very".
As I already pointed out, these last few quarters already answered that question. Regardless of whether you saw any differentiation, it looks like somewhere in the ballpark of a third their customers* saw something different about the iPhone X and had enough elasticity in their wallets to opt for it. The fact that you don't see a difference or think it justifies the higher price doesn't mean that others think and feel the same as you.
Using myself as a data point
An anecdote does not a trend make. That Apple doesn't make things you're interested in doesn't mean they don't make things that others are interested in. You want better bang for your buck and to see your dollars go towards obvious benefits. That's commendable, good thinking and a perfectly reasonable approach to making purchases. Others have different priorities and are more willing to spend more on smaller gains or smaller perceived benefits. To each their own.
Well. Apple will need to sell next year's model for $1200 to match this year's revenue increase
No, they don't. You've missed the forest for the trees if you think they need to increase prices like that. They need to grow their profits, sure, but there are plenty of ways to do so besides significant price hikes (e.g. reduce costs, increase monetization on already-sold units, increase units sold, etc.). Apple does a solid job at reducing their manufacturing costs each year (particularly after they come out with something that has high-cost components, such as the FaceID system in the X), and though I don't expect their sales numbers to shift dramatically, their Services division has been their fastest growing revenue stream for the last few years, so I'd expect to see them increase it even more in the coming years, thus providing them with continued profit growth without the need for any of the price hikes you're suggesting.
factoring in another 1% or so of market share decline
I'm not sure why you think this would matter. Provided their unit sales maintain their current levels (or slightly increase, as they have been for the last several years), Apple's market share could continue to slide without impacting their ability to maintain their current profitability or grow it in the ways I mentioned above.
* They don't provide breakdowns by model, but their iPhone ASP for this quarter was up $122 YoY. Given the price gap of $300 between similarly configured 8 and X models, a $122 gain in ASP taken at face value would suggest about 40% of their customers are opting for the X. I'll be a bit more conservative than that and look towards their 4Q rolling average ASP since this last quarter was particularly good for them. Looking at the 4Q average, it's only gone up $70 YoY. That said, the iPhone X has only been out for three quarters, so the 4Q average still has another quarter to go before it'll fully account for the X's impact. If current trends continue, we'd expect the 4Q ASP to stabilize around a gain of $93 YoY, suggesting that just less than a third of their customers are opting for the X. Either way, it's a lot of people.
That wasn't a small dip, that was a full year, full fledged nosedive, and another full year to retrace. I called it perfectly, thanks for pointing that out. Now I'm saying that AAPL has significant downside risk. You go load up on AAPL, ok? You're just the bagholder to do it. Anybody else, make your own mind up about who speaks the truth and who is a clueless snivelling Apple astroturfer.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Apple's smartphone market share declined from 48% to 17% from 2009 until now. Apple's current anemic growth makes its P/E of 19.5 unsustainable. Therefore you would need to be nuts to buy AAPL now, hoping it will grow. But let's not kid ourselves, AC who keeps reposting the same idiotic one liner doesn't own any stock of anything, let alone AAPL. Let's be clear: if you're playing with your retirement income, then don't touch AAPL with a ten foot pole. You heard it here. (Or more realistically, nobody actually heard this except the one pasty skinned AAPL troglodyte who gets totally triggered by truth about AAPL but isn't quite sure what to do about it.)
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Link please. Today I'm saying that AAPL has significant downside risk that makes it an inappropriate investment for anybody who can't afford to lose their retirement savings. And I'm saying that you do not own a single share of any stock and do not even know what a limit order is. And that you have pimples and are stupid. And also ugly with too much body hair and smell bad. How'm I doing?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
No link? And anger, your flatter yourself, you're not worth it.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Ok, maybe I'm old. But I actually use my phone mostly for making phone calls. Not that I like talking to people that much, but... well, I'm old, most of the people I communicate with are as well, and they like talking to people.
Without having to install additional apps.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Huawei is still accelerating, their sales point is being cheap. And in this economy, that's what sells.
And let's be honest here, do you care whether your phone falls apart in 2 years? First of all, chances are good that it will anyway, even if it's from a big name. Manufacturing is so sloppy and manufacturers are cutting so many corners (hold the puns about round corners, please) that everyone's production is by now at the bottom of the barrel. Quality doesn't come into play anymore anyway.
And who cares? Your adhesive contract that got you this phone you have for "really cheap" will run out in 2 years, so you want a new phone at that point anyway. And this phone comes FREE with your new adhesive contract!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Sorry if that was unclear, with "innovation" I meant "new and useful tools and features", not "flashy marketing gimmick nobody actually wants or even needs".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So far the theory. In fact, investors will become uneasy far, far earlier. Apple would survive that, easily, but you'll see a very different C-Level lineup very, very soon.
And since C-Levels make decisions in such companies, that's not going to happen anytime soon. They'd probably sink the company before going out with a whimper.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Hey, I tuned it down already. Originally it was "and if Cook doesn't get his head out of his ass (or what- or whoever's in there right now)", but I didn't want to come across as homophobic.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Since you are having trouble understanding what could go wrong
Honey, you have a terrible track record predicting what could go wrong but of course didn't. Do you really want to go there? Because that could go wrong, And with you the chances of it happening are so fucking sky high as you are.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
The X is only the icing on the shit sundae.
So the iPhone X is on you.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Cook probably couldn't sink Apple even if he deliberately set out to do just that.
Watch what happens to Cook if the stock trends down.
You failed to make an compelling argument why it would. But nothing happened the last couple of times the stock trended down. Not the least because it went back up pretty fast.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Nice summary of the Apple story. But you need to recognize Apple's dilemma: they painted themselves into a corner. Having reached market saturation and further numerical growth cut off by the Android hordes, Apple's now has to grow the price and the amount of aftermarket money it can squeeze out of each of its misty eye followers. Either that or invent something entirely new that everybody wants, but that isn't going to happen under the Tim Cook culture.
Hey moron, did you miss the news? The whole smartphone market is saturated and actually shrinking, and Apple still sold more phones, Apple's corner is getting bigger, and it has the color of massive gold. Why do you expect (but actually fear) eternal growth from Apple but from nobody else? And why do you then ignore all the products from Apple that are growing?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Apple hasn't achieved market saturation until Windows is at 10% and macOS at 90%, and not until Android is at 7% and iOS is at 95%.
You live on a different planet than the rest of us. On the planet we live on, Apple's smartphone market share peaked in 2009 at 48% and has declined steadily ever since, to less than 17% today. There is no reason to suppose that that trend will stop. Maybe it will eventually stabilize around 5% like the MacOS share of the PC market.
Well, how would we notice if the trend gasn't stopped already when that chart ends 4 years ago? All we know that the quarter we are currently talking about, Apple's marketshare grew. And the only one they could have taking it from is Android. Why don`t you predict doom for Android?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
And Mac share of the "Desktop" market is over 10%, twice what you claim.
I doubt it. Mac, 5.03%
Try to post without the insults, ok, to avoid being called out as the clown you come across as by not being able to support your argument after heaving out a lame ad hominem.
That article is 10 years old. Please continue post shit like this to prove you more than deserve all the insults we could ever throw at you.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
So far the theory. In fact, investors will become uneasy far, far earlier. Apple would survive that, easily, but you'll see a very different C-Level lineup very, very soon.
And since C-Levels make decisions in such companies, that's not going to happen anytime soon. They'd probably sink the company before going out with a whimper.
But, since Apple WILL continue to innovate and sell products, it's all a REALLY unlikely scenario.
Hey, I tuned it down already. Originally it was "and if Cook doesn't get his head out of his ass (or what- or whoever's in there right now)", but I didn't want to come across as homophobic.
Well, you may have "TUNED" it down (whatever THAT means!); but you CERTAINLY didn't "TONE" down the homophobic rhetoric.
if you look at "expensive phones", Apple has a _huge_ part of that, probably 60%
I'm not sure exactly what the share is in that sector, but it's not as high as that. Samsung's and Google's phones are expensive too
Yeah, but they don't sell as well. Probably because they are just as expensive. Heck, Google`s phone sales were always tiny, and probably even intended to be low. Anyway, here's some "old" news from Q4 2017 that doesn't actually prove you wrong - it's just better than anything you've provided thus far: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2018/04/18/8-of-the-top-10-most-profitable-smartphones-on-the-planet-are-made-by-apple/#69a94a4adb18
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
The iPhone X was such a disaster that they were able to increase their phone margins and overall net income enough to lift their EPS and share price >3%. An unmitigated disaster that brought them closer to being the first trillion-dollar company in history.
Outsold by Huawei now. Nothing could possibly go wrong, right?
Also outsold by Huawai last year. What did go wrong after that? https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/6/16259810/huawei-apple-global-smartphone-sales
Remember back when Samsung first outsold Apple, how you were cheering and predicting Apple's doom? What did go wrong after that?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Sorry, English is only my third language. Peut-être nous pouvons continuer en Francais? Oder wäre Dir Deutsch lieber?
So I used a word wrong. Could we get back to the discussion?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Again, we seem to have diverging ideas what 'innovate' is supposed to mean.
They will continue to produce new gimmicky toys if Cook stays true to his line so far. Whether they will sell them depends on whether this is actually what Apple users really want. I know I wanted an iPhone back when the first came out. I also know I don't want an iPhone X.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You think TouchID was a marketing gimmick? Do you prefer typing in a password?
Sorry, English is only my third language. Peut-être nous pouvons continuer en Francais? Oder wäre Dir Deutsch lieber?
So I used a word wrong. Could we get back to the discussion?
Ok, consider me duly chastised and embarrassed! I REALLY am sorry I was "mean" about your word-usage!
And yes, your English is a LOT better than my French and German!!! (Of which I know essentially zero...) ;-)
So, no, I would not like to continue in French nor German (but I didn't have to go to Google translate to figure those out at least!)
Now where were we?
So, I am not sure why you think that later-generation iPhones ("Cook Phones", if you will), fail in the "Functionality" department. If you are referring to the removal of the headphone jack, there are pluses and minuses to that; but in their defense, Apple DID provide TWO in-the-box solutions for everything but the (really rare and overblown) "need" to be able to charge through the Lightning jack while simultaneously listening to music (because, Goddess forbid, you take a half-hour break from your music to charge your phone up 50%!).
And if you are talking about software "toys" like Animojis or Memojies, that probably just started off in the Lab as a cute internal test of the Face-Tracking capabilities of FaceID, and someone saw it and said "Yeah, keep it in!" I seriously don't think it is anything more considered than that. Craig Federighi's attitude during the demo of the original Animoji demo and the recent Memoji demo shows that Apple doesn't really take the "feature" seriously, either...
Other than that, the iPhone and iPad (and Macs), and their respective OSes, just keep getting faster and more feature-filled. And that's EXACTLY what SHOULD be happening.
So, in short: I really don't get what you mean; and it doesn't help that you really didn't cite any concrete examples of your allegations.
Again, we seem to have diverging ideas what 'innovate' is supposed to mean.
They will continue to produce new gimmicky toys if Cook stays true to his line so far. Whether they will sell them depends on whether this is actually what Apple users really want. I know I wanted an iPhone back when the first came out. I also know I don't want an iPhone X.
But over a BILLION others, do.
Now what?
Now I wonder about the odd spelling you have for 12 millions.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
My job is in security. And among other things, we do test and break security features of mobile phones. Unfortunately that meant that in the more recent past, I could not recommend using iPhones anymore. Which kinda sucks, because I really liked them. Cook insists in using technology that just isn't there yet, all for the sake of looking cutting edge and offering some flashy gimmicks that can be used in ads as a "look, shiny!" distraction.
Same thing with the emojis and animojis and whatnot. Yes, they're nice and sure, they were created as a side project somewhere, why not ship them? What I didn't get was how they were touted as the next best thing since sliced bread and a must-have feature, one that supposedly sells the phone. That was the bit I didn't get about them. Yes, they sure don't hurt, but ... THAT is the selling point? It kinda makes you think that they're grasping at straws when they have to use that for their sales pitch.
The removal of various jacks strikes me as unnecessary. it feels a little like an attempt to squeeze more money out of their users by forcing them to buy more dongles and accessories that in the end make the whole ensemble look simply unappealing. There isn't much gain in aesthetics if the main unit looks sleek, but the whole thing is a mess once it's assembled in a configuration that's actually usable.
Jobs understood this. Back in the Jobs era, these were absolutely awesome systems. Personally, I don't really see that anymore. It gets clunkier, messier and overall it starts to feel more and more like what Apple tried to distance itself in the past: A cluttered, unmanageable mess like anything Microsoft made. I miss that "just works" factor that really made Apple stand out.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
To having my phone unlocked by a person who knows how to etch a PCB and use play-doh? Yes.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
My job is in security. And among other things, we do test and break security features of mobile phones. Unfortunately that meant that in the more recent past, I could not recommend using iPhones anymore. Which kinda sucks, because I really liked them. Cook insists in using technology that just isn't there yet, all for the sake of looking cutting edge and offering some flashy gimmicks that can be used in ads as a "look, shiny!" distraction.
Can you elaborate? What "technology that just isn't there yet" does the iPhone use that others don't? Genuinely curious.
Same thing with the emojis and animojis and whatnot. Yes, they're nice and sure, they were created as a side project somewhere, why not ship them? What I didn't get was how they were touted as the next best thing since sliced bread and a must-have feature, one that supposedly sells the phone. That was the bit I didn't get about them. Yes, they sure don't hurt, but ... THAT is the selling point? It kinda makes you think that they're grasping at straws when they have to use that for their sales pitch.
Here's what I think happened with the Animojis and then Memojies:
1. Apple's Devs. wanted a way to test their Face-Tracking API (ya know, the one they were going to make Public for 3rd party Devs. to use in games and whatnot). Someone internally came up with the Animojies. Someone else showed it to "Marketing", and they thought it was great. Fine. Include it in the release build and the Keynote... Makes a cute demo.
2. THEN, Samsung comes along and jumps BIG TIME into the Animoji "feature", significantly "upping the game". Well, now it's WAR... Now, Apple HAS to respond, or all the Samsung fanbois will crow about "How much more sophisticated Samsung's animojies are than Apples, blah, blah. So Apple HAD to invest more time and effort into the concept, AND make SURE it was part of the WWDC Keynote. But you could tell that Federighi was pretty-much rolling his eyes the whole time. Perhaps as a non-native English speaker (although you did get the "sliced bread" phrase right!), maybe you didn't catch some of his nuances and quick-jokes; but I assure you, they were there. Rest assured that, deep down, Apple is just having a bit of fun. As long as it doesn't compromise privacy or security, Is there anything really wrong with that?
The removal of various jacks strikes me as unnecessary. it feels a little like an attempt to squeeze more money out of their users by forcing them to buy more dongles and accessories that in the end make the whole ensemble look simply unappealing. There isn't much gain in aesthetics if the main unit looks sleek, but the whole thing is a mess once it's assembled in a configuration that's actually usable.
Now here, you sound less like a serious Security Professional, and more like one of those AC Apple-Haters, with their ridiculous conspiracy theories. I like a good Conspiracy Theory as much as the next guy; but it just isn't here.
Bottom line: Apple wasn't the first to eliminate the 3.5 mm jack. They are just (as usual) ahead of the curve. They INCLUDED not only a 3.5 mm adapter, but also a Lightning Headset. So just HOW does that help Apple "sell more dongles"? They even priced their Lightning -> 3.5mm adapter cable at US $9.00, which is REALLY low-priced for an Apple accessory cable; so again, doesn't seem like "profit" is the motive here. People (including you, i guess) need to sit back and think these conspiracy theories through before you make fools of yourselves on the internet for all to see...
Jobs understood this. Back in the Jobs era, these were absolutely awesome systems. Personally, I don't really see that anymore. It gets clunkier, messier and overall it starts to feel more and more like what Apple tried to distance itself in the past: A cluttered, unmanageable mess like anything Microsoft made. I miss that "just works" factor that really made Apple stand out.
...and also has your fingerprints? I think there are simpler options.
I've been eagerly awaiting ARM based Macbooks for years, but I think Apple will still use them to produce high margin products. While the CPU isn't cheap, it probably represents less than 10% of the total cost of the bill of materials of a Macbook Pro. That is to say, we might see $799 Macbook Airs, but we're not going to see $299 Macbooks.
None that don't involve you not knowing. Like, say, going with you for a drink, then having you spend the night with a hooker my company pays for, only for you to find your iPhone on the nightstand the next day after you wake up with a hangover the size of Texas...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I've been eagerly awaiting ARM based Macbooks for years, but I think Apple will still use them to produce high margin products. While the CPU isn't cheap, it probably represents less than 10% of the total cost of the bill of materials of a Macbook Pro. That is to say, we might see $799 Macbook Airs, but we're not going to see $299 Macbooks.
That CPU percentage of the BOM cost is just a raw guess, and not even a sophisticated one. If the CPU goes from $185 to $20 (perfectly possible), then that $165 difference should be reflected in the MSRP as about $495 (at a 3 X markup over raw materials cost). That gives us about a $500 MacBook (non Pro) or MacBook Air. And, as they start integrating more stuff into the CPU and it starts becoming a MacBook SoC, the cost reductions just keep piling up. Heat is probably the only limiting factor.
That CPU percentage of the BOM cost is just a raw guess, and not even a sophisticated one.
It was actually based on some (dated) numbers I found from a quick Google search. We can either both guess or produce something from the experts. If you have something more accurate I'd love to see it (really, no sarcasm).
If the CPU goes from $185 to $20 (perfectly possible), then that $165 difference should be reflected in the MSRP as about $495 (at a 3 X markup over raw materials cost). That gives us about a $500 MacBook (non Pro) or MacBook Air.
No, that's not how that works. Even if true, you can only maybe use that as a proxy to estimate the total retail cost to produce the device including marketing, support, etc. The bill of materials is only one component that makes up the total MSRP of a device, many of which cannot be reduced because the CPU was less expensive.
If you have better numbers than the ones I've linked, again, would love to look at them.
None that don't involve you not knowing.
Like someone just ... watching you type it in?