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
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?
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.
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.
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.
IF you are in a shrinking market then your entire investment and research and development needs to be re-evaluated with the declining market in mind. It isn't a disaster but it does significant affect current and future investments and will force companies to shutter or drop lines as they look to address the new reality. plenty of companies operate on razor thin margins in this sector (yes not apple or Samsung).
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.
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.
From what I've seen amongst friends and acquaintances, there are only three reasons most people upgrade these days:
1. The battery life has decreased to the point that it's unusable, and they don't seem to understand that you can change the battery.
2. The phone stops working and is out of warranty.
3. They're on a "plan" which amortizes the cost of the phone over several years, it's time for a renewal, and the provider has offered them a "deal" which they think is good.
Personally I just upgrade on a 2-3 year cycle and buy second hand phones which are about a year old. By that point they cost half or less of the original price, and they've been on the market long enough for me to evaluate the relative performance and reliability based on consumer reviews. Plus I can check and make sure they have an active development community on XDA and a way to unlock the bootloader.
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).
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?
Indeed. My recent reasons to replace my phone:
1. It wasn't waterproof and i dropped it in something wet. Touch no longer works.
2. It was waterproof but i dropped it and the glass broke. Touch no longer works.
3. It had it in the pocket of my jacket under very wet weather conditions. Touch no longer works.
4. It's 6+ year old and still working and going strong. It's almost my oldest phone. Since all the others don't work i'm using it right now. I ordered a new one because it's slow, the 3G a bit buggy and slow, and mostly because it's incompatible with my banking apps.
In short: they are made to fail, with this stupid glass screens with no or almost no bevel. The touch screen in particular is sensitive to wet conditions. By the way, with 'touch no longer works' i mean: random touches or unresponsive in certain screen areas, or a combination of both.
A glitch a day keeps the bugs away.
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
From what I've seen amongst friends and acquaintances, there are only three reasons most people upgrade these days:
1. The battery life has decreased to the point that it's unusable, and they don't seem to understand that you can change the battery.
2. The phone stops working and is out of warranty.
3. They're on a "plan" which amortizes the cost of the phone over several years, it's time for a renewal, and the provider has offered them a "deal" which they think is good.
I can boil that one down in to 1 reason.
1. The phone they have is good enough.
Smartphones are now mature. There's no huge advantage to buying a new model because it will only have minor differences. There aren't any more "killer" features to add, most improvements will not be noticed by the user, making fonts slighlty clearer, improving memory management, so on and so forth. There just isn't the impetus to upgrade any more.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
My current phone is a Moto Z Play. It's two years old and the battery, like many older smartphones, is going. Thankfully, with the Moto Mod concept, I can just buy a new external battery pack for $50, slap it on, and have good battery life again. No, it isn't going to prevent me from ever upgrading again, but it does help me push it off for another year or two.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I have had my OP3 for a little over 3 years and it still feels like a new phone to me. The battery life has not decreased significantly and it is still snappy.
The only (not valid) reason that I can come up with for replacing it is that I am a little bored with it and want something new.
But then I think about it for a minute and realize that the new phone will be fun for a few weeks and then it will be the exact same slab that I have currently. So what's the point?
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
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.
I remember 1977. No smartphone shipments whatsoever. None.
-- Cheers!
The only reason I upgraded from my N5 to an S7Edge was the better camera. I will wait to upgrade my S7E when I can get substantially better low-light performance in pictures + reasonable size (5-6 inches, 7 is too big), in a decent price range ($300-$400). Would be nice to keep my QI charging, but no one does plastic covers anymore and glass is slippery crap.
Indeed. My recent reasons to replace my phone:
1. It wasn't waterproof and i dropped it in something wet. Touch no longer works. 2. It was waterproof but i dropped it and the glass broke. Touch no longer works. 3. It had it in the pocket of my jacket under very wet weather conditions. Touch no longer works.
My last phone had the same apart the touch just stopped working, no reason given.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Picked up in '74 though.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
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.
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?
Pfft. I have a OnePlus One (64GB) sitting in a drawer and I can say that it could still be a glorious phone even today if it had a fingerprint reader.
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.
Me too, it was a LG Nexus 4 E960. I loved that phone until touch suddenly stopped working. I blame it on the fact that I tend to sweat, and that it was made by LG. Replaced it with a Moto G 2nd, which I regret because of the small RAM. I dropped it spectacularly several times, and the screen is coming out of the case at one corner, but it still works as well as ever. It wasn't advertised as being water resistant, but several independent tests have shown it to be highly so. Now I won't buy another phone unless water resistance is an advertised feature.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Mine was the first xperia z, supposed to be waterproof so I can't blame that. It just stopped one day. After that I actually had a lumia 950 windows phone. That still works but got replaced anyway.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
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.
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/
In short: they are made to fail
What the fuck?
1 - user idiocy
2 - user idiocy
3 - user idiocy
4 - didn't fail
Nice job on proving yourself wrong (and an idiot).
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!?
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.
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?
From profits.
Maybe you need to look up what dividends are?
How about end-of-life on security updates and OS upgrades?
What end user cares about those?
Keep in mind that the majority of people buying smartphones are just consumers. They don't want to use the device for anything specific, just consume through it. As long as they can do that, why do they care about the OG or whatever it is you called it.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
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.