1. warcraftWidow's Avatar
    http://images.wikia.com/mlp/images/4...s_Laughing.gif

    This marketshare vs. profit share argument is hilarious. You think Tesla sits and worries about GM's marketshare vs. Tesla's profit share? Apple doesn't have a million devices scatter shot at the market to try and make as many of them stick to the target...you know...like Samsung does. Apple sells a luxury item...and because they sell a handful of luxury items, they enjoy a substantial weight difference (and importance) vs. a company like Samsung or an OS developer like Google.

    I can't believe people are still, for some reason, worrying (or better put, broadcasting) woes about Apple and their ability to maintain relevance in the market. We might as well start talking about how many unicorns it takes to stretch a rainbow into the letter Z...it'd be just as legitimate and probably more humorous.
    50
    08-03-2014 10:35 PM
  2. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    50
    You could be right...except...

    Speedygi likes this.
    08-03-2014 10:38 PM
  3. Speedygi's Avatar
    I would like to know how many unicorns it takes to make lemonade...
    08-04-2014 04:16 AM
  4. FFR's Avatar
    I'm just saying that in the context of the global marketshare context, iPhone is a niche, and that is due to the dominance of Android, which was bolstered by the rise of Chinese manufacturers in the global smartphone market.
    What's your definition of a niche,

    Correction; chinese manufacturers in chinese territories, ands few surrounding areas, again not global market. I can't go out and buy a xiaomi or a lenevo in London, they are not offered, as far as I can tell they aren't offered in developed countries.




    I'm just saying that was what happened and it wasn't wrong to call the iPhone a niche product in terms of smartphone marketshare.
    No I'm telling you, your flat wrong, in fact you would be laughed at.
    You cannot call the number two global smart phone vendor a niche. Unless your calling Samsung and lg a niche as well?




    I have no doubts about the iPhone's influence but in the global context it's not the majority marketshare.
    Once again you talking about the iPhone; the number 2 global vendor of smartphones.

    With samsung's current rate of decline; they might even be number one by the time Cupertino releases the the ios 9 flagship, try calling it a niche then.



    Yes, Apple will keep making profits but it's never going to be number one manufacturer in the smartphone race.
    Ok, let's revisit your post in a year.

    They are already number 2, and I'm confident apple will reach number 1 by manufacturer or vendor in the next year or two.
    08-06-2014 03:38 AM
  5. Zacharyw70's Avatar
    The main reason Apple's marketshare is dwindling is because Android dominates the low end market which takes up most of the world where as Apple is dominating the higher end market (And most of the US).
    I don't think that's really a huge concern because Apple still makes a LOT more money than many Android manufacturers, hell I think Samsung is the only OEM that is making any amount of money and companies like Xiaomi, or Lenovo aren't directly benefiting from pushing Android. Not to mention if Apple ever decides to take low-end seriously they'll probably dominate many of those no name Android manufacturers because Apple has a ridiculously strong brand name going for them.
    08-06-2014 01:10 PM
  6. Speedygi's Avatar
    Some people would be upset if Apple created a lower end device, but I wouldn't. I would buy the devices just the same.
    A895 likes this.
    08-06-2014 09:35 PM
  7. Smply_Rcklss's Avatar
    Some people would be upset if Apple created a lower end device, but I wouldn't. I would buy the devices just the same.
    I was thinking the same, maybe they should release lower end devices. Change a few things up like, design wise some lower specs. It'll be interesting for the most part. I honestly don't see it happening bc ppl have it embedded that Apple is for the rich & Android is for the poor. Price wise, flagships cost the same if not more.

    Tapatalk'n On The 5s
    A895 likes this.
    08-10-2014 02:01 AM
  8. natasftw's Avatar
    Nah, if Apple's market share came down to single digits, it IS cause for worry. Let's not fool ourselves...


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    I'm curious about your background. Are you willing to share?

    Let's look at this from a business perspective. The goal of many successful companies is to remain self sufficient. To do this, it's best to avoid taking out loans of any kind. This requires a higher profit margin. The exact number varies from company to company. But, the general idea makes sense. If you don't have decent profits, you can't invest forward without finding another form of revenue. Loans are the easiest answer.

    If you're looking to continue forward, you're generally less concerned about "market share" and more worried about absolute numbers. If you have 10 million users in a market of 10 million and see revenue equal to $1/user, you're pretty happy with your 100% market share. If the market grows and offers more choices, you're going to lose your market share. But, if you maintain users and increase the revenue to $2/user, you're happy. You're now twice as profitable and you haven't actually LOST anything. The users that are watering the market share down weren't customers to begin with. Ideally, you'd prefer grow your base of customers. But you're not worried that you've lost market share.

    Keeping that in mind, if you have the same 10million users when there are now 101million people in the "market," does it alarm you or do you celebrate the $10/user you're seeing? You haven't lost anything. Your profits are 10 times what they once were. But, you've dropped from 100% of the market to being single digits. Why would we be alarmed?

    You're ignoring what this "market share" really means. It means the market has grown. It also shows there are alternate product lines available, if needed. If profits become stagnant, the market is much larger and we can make a similar product to sell to the rest of the market that were never our customers to begin with. It's MUCH easier to get someone to make an upgrade to a similar product than to convince them they need the product in the first place. As an example, if you've always owned a bike and never had a car, it's unlikely you'd see the $30,000 car being a worthwhile investment. But, you might be convinced to spend $3,000 on a car. Once it becomes something you're so used to that it almost feels like a necessity, you're more likely to justify spending $9,000 on a car. With each increment, it's easier to take the step upward. The market is growing. More people are experiencing smartphones. It's expected that every device in the market will lose some of the market share as a result. But, as users become accustomed to having a smartphone and grow frustrated with lower end devices, it's only a matter of time until they start taking those first steps. Decreasing market share is relatively meaningless. It'd be very unusual to remain stable or increase. Only "fools" spend a great deal of time focusing on this number.
    08-17-2014 04:12 PM
  9. Speedygi's Avatar
    Nah, I much rather have a product that can compete in every single smartphone category that still has Apple's design and production values but with more competitive prices to drive profits on all levels, not just in the luxury market.

    Putting all the eggs in one basket is not something I'd want. Apple KNOWS putting all the eggs in one basket isn't exactly their main goal. They've tried to go into the 7 inch tablet space and the relatively cheaper phone with the 4s and the 5c. They know what's at stake here. But in China and developing markets, their efforts are continually being thwarted. Very soon, the biggest markets in the world won't be Apple friendly, they will be customers Apple won't likely have. And that means less potential for profit growth. But all of that doesn't matter because Apple prices these phones for the high end, and essentially the postpaid world. Eventually that postpaid world is going to have more competitors.
    A895 likes this.
    08-17-2014 07:08 PM
  10. Tre Lawrence's Avatar
    Nah, I much rather have a product that can compete in every single smartphone category that still has Apple's design and production values but with more competitive prices to drive profits on all levels, not just in the luxury market.

    Putting all the eggs in one basket is not something I'd want. Apple KNOWS putting all the eggs in one basket isn't exactly their main goal. They've tried to go into the 7 inch tablet space and the relatively cheaper phone with the 4s and the 5c. They know what's at stake here. But in China and developing markets, their efforts are continually being thwarted. Very soon, the biggest markets in the world won't be Apple friendly, they will be customers Apple won't likely have. And that means less potential for profit growth. But all of that doesn't matter because Apple prices these phones for the high end, and essentially the postpaid world. Eventually that postpaid world is going to have more competitors.
    I think you make some pertinent points.

    I think what Apple really has going for it is its war chest. It can afford to be patient in a way, say, BBRY cannot.

    The one thing Apple has shown is that it can evolve like no other company, so I'm interested in seeing how it adapts. I believe a more direct discount program is inevitable, but I've been wrong before.
    08-18-2014 01:56 AM
  11. natasftw's Avatar
    Nah, I much rather have a product that can compete in every single smartphone category that still has Apple's design and production values but with more competitive prices to drive profits on all levels, not just in the luxury market.
    You cannot reasonably chase every market. There isn't a successful business that does this. Why don't we refrain from ideals and focus instead on actual strategy? Ideally, every company would like a strong product in every market. Apple's design and production values come at a cost. They could potentially leverage past R&D for devices to bring down the cost of building lower end devices, but these still wouldn't be as cheap as you'd like to believe.

    Putting all the eggs in one basket is not something I'd want. Apple KNOWS putting all the eggs in one basket isn't exactly their main goal. They've tried to go into the 7 inch tablet space and the relatively cheaper phone with the 4s and the 5c. They know what's at stake here. But in China and developing markets, their efforts are continually being thwarted. Very soon, the biggest markets in the world won't be Apple friendly, they will be customers Apple won't likely have. And that means less potential for profit growth. But all of that doesn't matter because Apple prices these phones for the high end, and essentially the postpaid world. Eventually that postpaid world is going to have more competitors.
    Again, let's remain with the real world. At what point in time has the iPhone ever been the only egg Apple has? When you ignore most of the picture, the point you make is valid. But, it no longer matters. It's like teaching high school physics students how a car stops in a world without friction.
    08-18-2014 02:18 AM
  12. A895's Avatar
    You cannot reasonably chase every market. There isn't a successful business that does this. Why don't we refrain from ideals and focus instead on actual strategy? Ideally, every company would like a strong product in every market. Apple's design and production values come at a cost. They could potentially leverage past R&D for devices to bring down the cost of building lower end devices, but these still wouldn't be as cheap as you'd like to believe.



    Again, let's remain with the real world. At what point in time has the iPhone ever been the only egg Apple has? When you ignore most of the picture, the point you make is valid. But, it no longer matters. It's like teaching high school physics students how a car stops in a world without friction.
    I see analogies and you say they shouldn't chase every market, but how do you expect a company to grow if you stay in the same spot?

    Posted via the iMore App for Android
    08-18-2014 02:56 AM
  13. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    I see analogies and you say they shouldn't chase every market, but how do you expect a company to grow if you stay in the same spot?

    Posted via the iMore App for Android
    How do you expect a company to grow if they cheapen the brand? Works both ways sweetheart.
    08-18-2014 03:18 AM
  14. A895's Avatar
    How do you expect a company to grow if they cheapen the brand? Works both ways sweetheart.
    Cheapen the brand? Sound spoke you don't want to lose the "iPhones is premium" perception. That does not affect actual profits, if it did, Samsung wouldn't be the behemoth it is.

    Posted via the iMore App for Android
    08-18-2014 03:32 AM
  15. warcraftWidow's Avatar
    Cheapen the brand? Sound spoke you don't want to lose the "iPhones is premium" perception. That does not affect actual profits, if it did, Samsung wouldn't be the behemoth it is.

    Posted via the iMore App for Android
    Have you seen Samsung's quarterly statements lately?
    08-18-2014 06:55 AM
  16. A895's Avatar
    Have you seen Samsung's quarterly statements lately?
    Yeah, they didn't met expectations because the high end market is getting saturated. They still make billions just like Apple on mobile, Samsung made 37 billion last year off of mobile alone and is driving growth for the entire company they aren't losing their spot as the biggest anytime soon.

    Posted via the iMore App for Android
    08-18-2014 07:55 AM
  17. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    Cheapen the brand? Sound spoke you don't want to lose the "iPhones is premium" perception. That does not affect actual profits, if it did, Samsung wouldn't be the behemoth it is.

    Posted via the iMore App for Android
    You don't get it man. You simply do not get it at all. Samsung is a behemoth because they already had a giant company with a multitude of products to support their venture into the smart phone world. Looking back through history, you can see that even this doesn't always work out best, but Samsung could fall back on their TV's alone to support them as they developed a smart phone that gained a foot hold and became attractive to consumers. They could not have done this without that safety net...and you can see that based on their first attempts, and how their early cell phones did on the market (in terms of customer satisfaction).

    Yes...cheapening the brand is exactly what I don't want, and thankfully, Apple share the same sentiment. You just don't like facing the fact that there are enough people in the market that aren't proponents of cookie cutter crap (like yourself) to keep Apple relevant without diving into the budget bin cell phone market.
    rdiddy_25 and nj1266 like this.
    08-18-2014 12:31 PM
  18. warcraftWidow's Avatar
    Yeah, they didn't met expectations because the high end market is getting saturated. They still make billions just like Apple on mobile, Samsung made 37 billion last year off of mobile alone and is driving growth for the entire company they aren't losing their spot as the biggest anytime soon.

    Posted via the iMore App for Android
    Samsung's quarterly operating profit (quarter ending June 30) fell 25% year-over-year with that being the third straight quarter of operating profit declines. This was also their worst quarterly to fit in two years. Their newly released S5 was outsold in May by the iPhone 5S which at that point had been on the market for 9 months. Their guidance to investors also cautioned that they were expecting more declines in operating profit in the upcoming quarters. Of their Apr-Jun quarter profits (7.2 trillion won approx $7.03 billion U.S. Dollars), only 4.42 trillion won ($4.316 billion U.S.) came from their mobile division which was down from 6.28 trillion won a year ago.
    For the same Apr-June 3014 quarter, Apple reported $7.7 billion in net profit (note that Samsung's figures are for operating profit and Apple is reporting net profit and while I'm not an accountant, operating profit is almost always going to be more than net profit so Samsung's net profit for the quarter is most certainly lower than the operating profit listed above).
    Flow39 and Just_Me_D like this.
    08-18-2014 12:54 PM
  19. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    Exactly this...when you're the Walmart of the consumer electronics world, attempting to cover every single base of product and consumer that exists in the market, you're going to make money one way or another...doesn't mean your numbers translate to jack squat when you compare them to a more niche based company's numbers. This was the point my other thread was making...since you obviously missed it.

    It's a simple quality vs. quantity thing. I'm just glad we still have companies that can tell (and prefer) the difference.
    Flow39 and rdiddy_25 like this.
    08-18-2014 01:03 PM
  20. Flow39's Avatar
    Exactly this...when you're the Walmart of the consumer electronics world, attempting to cover every single base of product and consumer that exists in the market, you're going to make money one way or another...doesn't mean your numbers translate to jack squat when you compare them to a more niche based company's numbers. This was the point my other thread was making...since you obviously missed it.

    It's a simple quality vs. quantity thing. I'm just glad we still have companies that can tell (and prefer) the difference.
    This was exactly what I was trying to explain in a post earlier when I was talking about quality vs. quantity and brand image. I don't want Apple to become the Walmart of the smartphone world, that's what Samsung is here for.
    08-18-2014 01:13 PM
  21. Tre Lawrence's Avatar
    But why is it that the idea of Apple concurrently offering devices in different price points synonymous with cheapening the brand?
    08-18-2014 03:05 PM
  22. warcraftWidow's Avatar
    But why is it that the idea of Apple concurrently offering devices in different price points synonymous with cheapening the brand?
    For the same reason that It would cheapen the Mercedes brand if they started offering at $15K car.
    Also the same reason (but in reverse) that about 20 years ago Honda, Toyota and Nissan created Acura, Lexus, and Infiniti luxury brands because they knew in the public's eye, Honda, Toyota, and Nissan were the cheap "commoner's" brand and the luxury vehicles would not do as well if they shared branding with their cheaper counterparts.
    08-18-2014 03:18 PM
  23. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    But why is it that the idea of Apple concurrently offering devices in different price points synonymous with cheapening the brand?
    You are being intentionally vague with your question...the actual question would actual give you your answer within itself...

    "Why is the idea of Apple concurrently offering entry level devices synonymous with cheapening the brand?"
    08-18-2014 04:41 PM
  24. Just_Me_D's Avatar
    I see analogies and you say they shouldn't chase every market, but how do you expect a company to grow if you stay in the same spot?

    Posted via the iMore App for Android
    If you start a business that sells a certain product, one of the first things you have to do is define your target market. In other words, determine the segment of the population who is likely to buy your product. Once you've done that, you focus your attention on attracting that segment so that they'd buy your product. Once you've gotten that segment to purchase your product, you find out from them how to improve it and what other products you could make that could further enhance their user experience. So, to your question how can a company grow if it stays in the same spot, Apple struck big time gold with the introduction of the iPod. That was a quality built and expensive device, and yet, they sold millions upon millions of them to those who would likely buy it. Then came the iPhone. Many of the people who initially purchased the iPod, also bought the iPhone. After that, Apple introduced the iPad. Many of those who bought the aforementioned items also bought the iPad. Many went on to buy the MacBook, too. Not only that, a good deal of those people bought their children some of those Apple products. Same target market with increased growth in sales. Got it?...
    08-18-2014 05:18 PM
  25. Tre Lawrence's Avatar
    You are being intentionally vague with your question...the actual question would actual give you your answer within itself...

    "Why is the idea of Apple concurrently offering entry level devices synonymous with cheapening the brand?"
    Nope. Different price points.

    But then again, Apple already does. I don't think it cheapens the brand.
    08-18-2014 08:26 PM
86 1234

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 120
    Last Post: 08-26-2014, 04:46 AM
  2. Apple allegedly shaving down Beats workforce
    By iMore.com in forum iMore.com News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-30-2014, 03:10 PM
  3. Russia wants Apple's source code to prove it's not used for spying
    By iMore.com in forum iMore.com News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-30-2014, 12:00 PM
  4. Apple Stores will help you save some dough during US state tax holidays
    By iMore.com in forum iMore.com News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-30-2014, 11:00 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-30-2014, 08:48 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD