Slashdot Mirror
2018 Was the 'Worst Year Ever' For Smartphone Shipments (cnbc.com)
2018 was the worst year ever for smartphone shipments, according to the latest figures from research firm IDC. It means Apple isn't the only company fighting to keep people interested in buying new phones every year. From a report: IDC said 1.4 billion smartphones were sold in 2018, marking a 4.1 percent decline for the year in an industry that's accustomed to rapid growth. In 2014, as well, 1.4 billion phones were shipped, which means the industry seems to have regressed about 5 years. Shipments shrank 4.9 percent for the fourth quarter of 2018, IDC said. Apple said earlier this week that iPhone revenues were 15 percent lower than last year. CEO Tim Cook said the strengthened dollar, an economic slowdown in China, lower subsidies on phones and its battery replacement program contributed to the drop in sales. Samsung phone shipments declined 5.5 percent and Apple's slipped 11.5 percent during the quarter, IDC said. But Huawei, which was able to capitalize on China, saw a 33.6 percent bump in shipments. Chinese vendors Oppo and Xiaomi also increased shipments, IDC said.
I don't want to buy a new phone because they're not worth the cost. They keep breaking and their batteries die. Why would I keep spending money on these hyped up pieces of garbage that surveill me?
... so worst ever is probably exaggerated here
Why upgrade when most new phones really don't offer a reason other then it's new to upgrade over your phone from a couple years ago? There really isn't a good reason to upgrade to the latest and greatest.
Never mind sales numbers, all Apple has to do is keep increasing the price of new models in proportion to falling sales numbers.
Revenue stays the same, and costs even go down! Shareholders happy. How can the plan fail?
...
who woulda thunk.
1.4 billion phones. 7.6 billion people, figure half of that is probably too old, too young, not literate enough, or live where infrastructure is lacking. leaving 3.8 billion potential users....
at 100% market penetration, that's literally everybody, everywhere on the fucking planet, buying a new smartphone every 2.75 years.
This is how Android's problematic security updates will become a real problem. People will now keep old unpatched Android devices for longer, so all it will take is one golden exploit (think of Stagefright but self-propagating like MS Blaster of old) to bring down the Android ecosystem. Because most devices in the ecosystem are unpatchable.
Smartphone tech has matured, so we dont need to upgrade every year or two year. This is a good thing. Why is every shit news site pumping out story after story on this. Is it a really a bad thing when we can consume less and save more?
... to buy a phone with no new features in the past 5 years, aside from a slightly better camera. considering all they take away from us, like battery life and repairability
Talk about a year that was, err, plagued with problems...
Most people use their phones for messaging, calling people and scrolling through websites or looking up information. That can be done well on even the cheapest modern phones. I think a lot of people are addicted to their phones, but there's not this need to have the latest and greatest anymore as long as the apps run ok.
If there's not a growth on the growth of last year's growth, then everyone will inevitably end up in poverty on the streets. That's the mentality of the nut-case fucktards at Apple.
most of the people already have a smartphone... what were they thinking, that we would be buying phones forever? Do they know the Malthusian growth model does not have physical sense?
actually it was the worse year for smartphone prices. if the prices were reasonable, they would have been no problems with shipments.
I cant bear this slumping sales, I will schwartz myself.
The crap they shipped was the worst ever.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
We all have one that is good enough. Would have to be really well priced or have a can't live without feature. Latest same old same old will not cut it.
Give us modern jackphones and we will upgrade. The fact that Apple resold the SE with jack for a while is a BIG FUCKING CLUE!
It is good for the customer when products are become more durable. However, capitalism requires growth (at least in its current incarnation). Shrinking markets are not compatible with this necessity. Therefore, economists get nervous when more and more markets start to shrink.
The market is saturated. Most new phones have few if any new features that would drive someone to them other than being new. For the narcissistic market they buy new phones. For most new phones are just an overpriced device.
The upgrade cycle is not only too costly, but it's just a PITA to get everything moved to the new phone.
Apple's 15% revenue decline is really due to the much higher prices Apple is now charging. Overall, the industry's decline is due to higher prices for flagship phones, saturation of markets, no compelling new "must-have" features, and the stupid, stupid, stupid notch fad created by Apple and copied by competitors.
I still want to live to see Apple's bankruptcy. It's an absurd a company selling technology with such high prices. And their phones are NOT better than many Android models that cost a THIRD of their price. Go Xiaomi and Oppo!
much like with desktop/laptops there isn't much need to upgrade even a mid-level smartphone these days.
which features does it have to warant me to spend a lot of money for such a device?
cpu power is adequate and even storage is not really an issue most of the time anymore.
a better camera? the current offerings are probably more then good enough for most people.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
Capitalism does not require growth. Bullshit expectations of increased profit revenue requires growth.
Look, I get by on X Euro every year. If I don't increase my profits every year...my god, think of the consequences to the capitalism!
I don't know why everyone is brainwashed into thinking capitalism = unstopped growth and socialism = stalin.... a little of both with expectations of peace and happiness instead of growth and war would make a big difference towards unchecked carbon release.
Of course that's what various hippies since Jesus have been saying, so who gives a shit. The smart phone market is drying up! Fire the lowest paid employees and drive the stock back up!
1.4 billion?? Think about that as a percentage of the world's population. Holy carp.
And that's vs. the whole world population. What fraction of that group is actually the market for what is essentially as luxury consumer product?
This has to be one of the most amazingly successful luxury items of all time.
What should astonish is that it was ever more successful.
My company calls em "Scamsung" phones. Ordered a bunch of them and within a week had several users with broken screens, not being able to take the battery out to reset the phone, etc. It was CUTE when they removed the bezel and needlessly made a paper thin glass back. We had a few users destroy the backs by trying to remove them as they used to be able to do. There is NO EXCUSE for making the back glass. Only a true fool would accept the fake arguments made by these jokers.
However, capitalism requires growth
People keep saying this as if it were self evident, but it's just nonsense. Capitalism tends to create and encourage growth, but there's nothing about it which requires growth.
I just bought a Doogee phone for about £45. It's to replace my old Galaxy S5 mini which we were using as a "sonos remote control" in the kitchen. Sonos are upgrading their app and whatever version of android the S5 runs is too old for it. So my upgrade prompt was bloody Sonos :-(
Anyway, the doogee runs Android 8.1, has a big bright screen, comes with a case and a screen protector and (so far) looks like a great replacement for the remote control. At this sort of price, it makes me slightly regret spending £10 buying a new battery for the samsung a few months back. My only slight gripe is that there's no 'desk dock' for it as the power socket is at the top.
For those looking for an actual phone, it's got dual sim, removable battery, headphone jack and most of the features you would want, but it is quite heavy. However, when we need another 'remote control' somewhere else in the house, I'll be buying another. Now the S5 is freed up, I'm on the prowl for a different OS to stick on it...
it is ``planning on ales growth" which is unsustainable. Nothing can grow exponentially in the long term. Once the market is saturated there will be overall sales decay, inevitably, until a new big revolution comes in. We have been spoiled with progress and innovation for the last two decades. So, the improvements feel less impressive. Consolidation has something good: we don't need to buy new phones every year, the devices have become pretty reliable. I'm also still amazed and pleased how good the cameras in the phones have become (this was still one of the main reasons for me to upgrade to a newer phone).
The layer that most people access the internet at is patchable. Also the egress points are the cell network, not the individual phones. Yes, it could cause wifi cellphone connections to go away. That's it.
If my galaxy s5 had not gone blank screen on me, I would not have bought a Moto Z. Sure the Moto Z has a bit better screen but is missing key features like a replaceable batter but is a downgrade to me (it was also the cheapest smartphone I could find by enough to compensate for a couple of battery replacements). So there just isn't anything in a new phone I've found that is a benefit over the old galaxy s5, much less the Moto Z (unless a good new phone comes out with replaceable battery when the Moto Z battery starts declining).
When Verizon forced the smartphone subsidy into the monthly cost I upgraded every couple years because it didn't make sense not to. If they had not dropped that I would have switched to a lower priced mobile service and buy my own phone. Since they did drop me subsidizing new phones, I just don't buy one if I don't have to as it isn't worth it.
Shareholders require growth. That's about it. Now how intrinsically linked are stock exchanges and capitalism?
maybe they will pull their heads in and sell something consumers want
I won't pay more than $400 for a phone
I need root access without having to risk bricking the device
The battery must be easily replaceable
It must have a standard audio jack
Is this so hard?
Tim Cook said it himself: Allowing customers to replace the batteries was part of the problem. The obvious solution is for Apple to refuse to replace them while making new phones even harder to open./s
Seriously, this crap of making electronics purposefully hard to repair is a cancer. They should be built to be easily repairable and to last. Warranties somewhat take care of the latter but there's no law to promote the former. It's not only a matter of money but also of e-waste
Only in modern time. What share holders should be caring about is the Return of Investment, e.g. how much money do they get back at the end of the year for every dollar invested. Increased stock price is one way, dividents payed out is another. Only one of the two requires growth..
I would buy a new phone with a great camera if it came with a headphone jack, but it seems the industry doesn't care what I want at this point in time.
I can wait. Sooner or later some bright executive will realize giving people what they want works in a saturated market.
When people had landlines, they would use the same phone for decades.
Why are cellphones supposed to be replaced every year for ridiculously high prices?
It's very stupid for companies to think that people are going to do that.
Eventually you're going to reach a level of saturation, and level of incremental increase that slows everything down.
This is good because it will force companies to evolve or die, that's how the system is supposed to work.
Verizon stopped offering the "New Every Two" deal, where you could get a new phone every two years for pennies on the dollar. Now you have to pay full price up front or make monthly payments on full price phones. This is the obvious side effect.
Capitalism not only requires growth, it requires exponential growth.
Investors, i.e. capitalists, expect a return on their investment, and they expect that return to be some percentage of that investment. A percentage return on investment implies exponential growth. Would you invest in something where you expected to get your principle back and nothing else?
You can maybe imagine some form of "capitalism" where a group of leaders, chosen by some other means than how much money they have, decide how to allocate resources.
That's an odd way to characterize it. Why not just tell it straight: "In 2018, less perfectly good phones were dumped into overflowing landfills than in 2017, and fewer people wasted money on unnecessary new phones. In other news, the floating plastic island in the Pacific is still growing..."
I remember 1977. No smartphone shipments whatsoever. None.
-- Cheers!
This is how Android's problematic security updates will become a real problem. People will now keep old unpatched Android devices for longer, so all it will take is one golden exploit (think of Stagefright but self-propagating like MS Blaster of old) to bring down the Android ecosystem. Because most devices in the ecosystem are unpatchable.
Perfect reason for them all to go buy new ones when some mysterious virus out of nowhere (definitely not made by google) sweeps through and bricks everything more than x software versions ago.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
When you see how oposed the stockholders are against competition, I would say they are not much linked at all.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Exactly this. Only the shareholders who buy stocks specifically looking for growth are demanding growth. More conservative investors tend to buy stocks which have a strong history of paying out regular, predictable dividends.
In the absence of growth companies would just need to focus more on paying dividends, and investors would have to tame their get-rich-quick ambitions. The market would still work fine.
Capitalism does not require growth. Bullshit expectations of increased profit revenue requires growth.
This is very true. Unfortunately, stock-based corporations that reward executives based on short-term stock price appreciation require growth at all costs. The real problem is that growth is defined in terms of short-term metrics that do not value long-term company strength, employee well-being, or societal welfare. Capitalism does not mandate this. For example, small-business owners are often driven by different motivations.
Of those 1.4 billion smartphones sold in 2014, how many are still in use (being kept in a drawer as a backup counts as 'use') by the original owner, how many are being used by a second or third owner, and how many are in the landfill? I suspect a large majority are in a landfill. Huge amounts of advanced computing power, precious metals, lithium batteries etc etc all disposed of as 'waste' every year, I'm certainly no environmental nut (I will cling onto my internal combustion engine till I die) but I find it sickening.
Smartphones should be made to last at least 3-5 years (a new battery is allowed, and all phones must have user replaceable batteries), old phones must be refurbished or responsibly recycled by the manufacturer. All phones must have an external microSD slot (dual sim where the 2nd sim slot doubles as a microSD slot is fine) so people aren't forced to upgrade due to lack of memory. Of course it will never happen, there's too much money to be made convincing people they need to upgrade their phone EVERY year.
What the fucking fuck? "Jew greed"? Are you a 12 year old from 1950?
Let me guess. You are designing a brand new candy-bar cellphone--right?
For years, I've wanted a new cellphone with a physical keyboard. I hate Apple's closedness, and Android's UI sloppiness. I like being able to plug a USB drive into my phone. Curved screens are impractical. Replaceable MicroSDs and removable batteries rock my cellphone word. We don't need 5 crappy cameras--only one good one. Battery life rules the business world.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Remember how the PC market started stalling at about the time of introduction of Windows Vista a decade ago, and then went into a full decline by 2012? People who don't play 3D games started to keep their PCs for 6-7 years because PC with Core 2 Duo was enough for checking mail, social networks, or browsing the web. The smartphones have reached the same plateau.
I recall how horrible were the early iPhones. They reminded me the PCs of the 1990s. Despite all the innovations, there was no denying that say iPhone 3G or iPhone 4S were ridiculously and painfully slow for things like web browsing. Watching video or reading the ebook on 3-inch something display was terrible. But the technology has moved on, and I myself use a 2016 Honor 6X phone which cost me 200 bucks (when it was new). It's has a big bright screen, good camera, the security patch level from Dec 2018, battery to last at least a day and runs all apps that I actually use flawlessly. Sometimes I entertain the idea of getting a 2019 phone, but at the same time I just wonder, don't fix what's not broken.
That the last few versions of phones have been nothing more than soaking consumers. Slim, sexy, colorful & stylish just ain't cutting it anymore, given what they are charging. When you can buy a GOOD phone for 500 bucks, why would you spend 1000-1300 dollars on one just to get an apple/samsung logo?
Only reason to upgrade... the network. Until we get a true LTE 5 implementation with access to a new level of bandwidth/experience on the phone there isn't a reason to upgrade. Carriers have a long way to go to get their networks upgraded and ready for consumers even after the hardware is available.
My smartphone can make phone calls, video calls, read e-mail, play music, interface with other devices with bluetooth, act as a GPS navigation system, browse websites, and stream videos on a beautiful high resolution screen—all while holding enough charge to last all day. And even the cheapest models on the market can do all these things, since Moore's Law is no longer rendering old phones quickly obsolete. There is finally value in repairing your existing phone, and in buying used phones.
But we don't need to be any more excited about them than microwaves, washing machines, and refrigerators.
You can claim you don't need a smartphone, and while that's technically true I'll share a similar experience. My aunt and uncle's house in downtown Muskegon didn't get a bathroom until the 1960's. Before that it only had an outhouse. There was internal plumbing to the kitchen, but that was about it.
Shareholders require profits, not growth. Growth is desirable because it's usually coupled with bigger profits, but is not necessary. In the absence of growth, profits can come from increased economic efficiency alone.
e.g. I own a dairy farm, you own a chicken farm. I have a refrigerator full of milk and would like something to eat. You have a refrigerator full of eggs and would like something to drink. The efficiency of our economics is improved if I trade some of my milk for some of your eggs. That is, eggs are more valuable to me than milk; milk is more valuable to you than eggs.
So when we trade milk for eggs, both of us come out winners (we both profit from the transaction). I give up undesired milk to gain desired eggs. You give up undesired eggs to gain desired milk. This is what they mean when they say economics is not a zero-sum game. The physical goods and services may be zero sum, but their value is positive sum (because the value to each participant is different). In other words, economics is not just about making stuff; it's also about distributing that stuff for maximum benefit. You and I can continue our milk and egg trade arrangement in perpetuity. It will continue to benefit us (profit us) even though there's no growth, and even if there's no change.
The new frontier is multiple phones per customer. Phones as fashion item. Wearing black? You must have a black phone! Wearing chartreuse? That phone had better match in color, hue and intensity! Wearing crinoline? Why not a crinoline phone (jk)?
I believe 1969 had 0 smartphone shipments and would qualify for "Worst Year Ever"
The fact that everybody and their brother already has at least one phone that functions perfectly fine is the biggest reason why. The fact that they added some silly "feature" to an app, or a new emoji, or whatever doesn't do much for the average person. The world is over-saturated with phones! The technology in them for the past few generations has been perfectly adequate to do what 98% of people use them for too - browse websites, post to social media, text... and make the occasional phone call. We all knew this day would come... quit trying to blame trade with China and all kinds of other factors why sales are dropping. People are not as stupid sheep-like as you manufacturers seem to think they are!
New radios will make me upgrade if they give me better range/signal.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It's almost like people don't like paying $1,000 for device that doesn't do what they want and blocks them from installing software that does do what they want.
Just waiting for someone to take the market with a rootable phablet having a removable battery, headphone jack, and SD card slot.
We've already got one!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea8GyscSFaQ
Capitalism does not require growth.
Bullshit. Show me an investor that's willing to invest in a product with no return. Are you expecting capitalism is just a system where people hedge against inflation?
You can maybe imagine some form of "capitalism" where a group of leaders, chosen by some other means than how much money they have, decide how to allocate resources.
The human species has tried a couple of those systems from time to time. The funny thing is that those systems have always failed spectacularly. Sooner or later the "leaders" figure out that they can manipulate the system to the benefit of themselves and their cronies, except without any economic forces working against them. Unlike a capitalist system, these systems general feature a lack of freedom and strong gun control to prevent dissent and rebellion. Watch the process at work in the UK where they're working hard to nullify the popular vote for Brexit and police are kicking down doors of people for Twitter posts. Watch it in France as police shoot protesters and they have no guns to shoot back with. Watch it in Venezuela as people starve and the "leaders" refuse to acknowledge democratic defeat. Let's not repeat the mistakes of the world and learn from them instead.
Shareholders require growth.
No, they don't. They *like* growth, but they're also quite happy to invest in an industry with flat or declining sales, so long as it has a decent profit margin.
Take, for example, desktop PC sales. They're declining - but there's still a thriving industry built around developing new hardware, investing capital in research, development & manufacturing, etc.
In general, capitalism is a way of efficiently allocating resources (by using the self-interest of market participants to motivate them). A consequence of this is that resources are allocated preferentially towards growth areas - of course, because growth areas need more resources - but it allocates an appropriate amount of resources to other areas, too.
In the absence of growth companies would just need to focus more on paying dividends
LOL. How are companies going to pay dividends without growth?
It's possible to deliver a strong positive return (above and beyond any inflation) without growth, which makes your entire point pointless.
Maybe it's because everyone who wants one now has one?
It's almost like the adoption phase is now over.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Even worse than the Great Mobile Drought from 1536!?
No growth = no investment (because finance for it would have to be taken directly from current profits, which shareholders won't allow).
No investment = stagnation and failure.
So 2018 was a worse year for smartphone shipments than 1918?
Remember when being a journalist required a functioning brain? It has been quite a while. 1.4 billion smartphones shipped would make 2018 the second best year ever for smartphone shipments, not the worst. 2018 was, however, the worst year ever for quality of journalism. With gems like this story, 2019 is already set to top it though.
The dumb shit people decide is "important" is the reason why we can't have nice things. A fingerprint reader is not "needed" by anyone. Stop being a lazy fuck and type/swype your code in. Adding in every stupid little gadget to an already small platform is why we get bloated and barely useful devices that eat power like a fat bastard at a chinese buffet.
These two features might help spur sales of another generation of smartphones. Until then, why bother?
FaceID - "Some people have trouble with it"? Some of us see it as the spookiest crazy invasive shit! You think we don't scan our fingerprints because we're lazy? Wow!
Why does anyone accept this invasive biometrics garbage?
A square root is also exponential, as are many other curves including a line.
From profits.
Maybe you need to look up what dividends are?
Loaning with interest does not require growth. Even in an economy of constant size, people can want to borrow money, and they return it with interest to compensate for the risk of default.
Investing is no different from loaning with interest. You give the borrower money, they promise to return it with a bit more added. This can be beneficial for both sides (the money-rich person has a "competitive advantage" in providing money, the money-poor person has a "competitive advantage" in providing labor), so they both agree to it. This year person A borrows money, next year person B borrows money in the same circumstances. Investment has occurred, but the economy has not grown.
There are two possibilities in your scenario: 1) inflation is as great as the interest, so the interest is essentially imaginary and 2) the borrower makes the irrational decision to give some of his wealth to the lender, for no reason.
Investment with a (real) percentage return means that wealth is growing exponentially, or somebody's getting a raw deal.
If you prefer game theory, investment is a positive sum game, and positive sum means there's more when you're done than when you start. In other words, growth.
Nope.
Let's say the borrower's crop was eaten by rats this year. So he borrows seed to plant, and returns the seed with interest after the harvest.
Let's say the exact same scenario repeats itself year after year.
The actions, investments, and profits of each individual are identical in each year, so the economy does not grow.