Apple's marketshare really did go down...

[FFR]

A great CEO sees opportunity for growth too, and yes, Apple does excel in refining new product categories but that's only going to be their only strong suit, but they are never going to be anything but a niche player in any given market...

And I think we should just accept that as a plus for Apple.

Really speedy?
The iPod was a niche?
The iPad?
the iPhone?

What's exactly is you definition of a niche?

As someone earlier said: Apple has nearly 800 million iTunes accounts, do you consider that number to be niche?

Just for some perspective, In June of 2013, iTunes had about 575 million accounts. That's a growth rate of 40% in ONE year, yup new users.

Now let's look at Google stats Gmail users were around 500 million, Google drive userrs : 120 million,

Here are some more facts about what you consider niche speedy:

-If the iPhone were a company in its own right, it would be bigger than McDonald?s and Coca Cola combined.

-The iPad generated more revenue last quarter than Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, Groupon, and Tesla combined.

-Apple?s sales from hardware accessories is larger than Chipotle?s revenue.

-Apple?s iTunes, software, and services businesses are bigger than eBay.

-While sales of the old iPod line may be shrinking, it?s still 77% larger than Twitter.

ROFLMAO @ niche; Apple owns the market, that's anything but niche.

 

[Premium1]

Then we disagree; as qb put it it's not personal.

The iPhone launch on Verizon, decimated the droid vendors, remember droid. Motorola, htc, Kyocera and even blackberry and palm, all now are dying or dead.
The iPhone 5 and 5s steamrolled over the competition; nokia, NEC, toshiba, Panasonic, Sony, again all dead or dying.

Who is left?
Samsung, they are down 7.4% vs apple's 1.5% "perceived" decline in marketshare. So according to a lot of people the sky is falling for Samsung as well, I mean 7.4% decline is larger than 1.5% decline?

*Perceived decline: because apple actually increased units shipped by 4 million iPhones yoy vs Samsung's actual decline in units shipped.

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/08/02/be3u7u8e.jpg


How can that happen?
Easily, by skewing results:
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/08/02/ta8a2uze.jpg

Not personal at all. But Kyocera was never huge to start and yes Samsung is down but Htc, lg, and other small OEMs are up.

 

[the_tech_eater]

Not personal at all. But Kyocera was never huge to start and yes Samsung is down but Htc, lg, and other small OEMs are up.

Htc and lg are both tiny compared to apple and Samsung.

 

[Speedygi]

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.

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.

I have no doubts about the iPhone's influence but in the global context it's not the majority marketshare.

Yes, Apple will keep making profits but it's never going to be number one manufacturer in the smartphone race.

 

[FFR]

Not personal at all. But Kyocera was never huge to start and yes Samsung is down but Htc, lg, and other small OEMs are up.

Kyocera was huge in the cdma market, and by extension Verizon, sprint, and any mvnos utilizing verizon or sprint as their backbone.
However having said that, the recent proliferation of iphones at boost mobile, virgin, cricket wireless and most of the other budget wireless mvnos , it's going to be a lot more competitive for android vendors this year.

What other small oem's?
Sony, Asus, and acer are cratering, almost all of lg's profit came from other divisions:

Lg:
Air conditioning division ($159.4 million)
TV division ($150 million)
Home appliance ($95 million)
Mobile phone division ($83.4 million)

Htc : ($75 million)* rumored Microsoft payout for bastardizing the m8 with windows 8.1

Both will not be able to sustain profits once the iphone 6 is released.

And btw rumor has it that Microsoft paid both lg and htc 100 million dollars + each to convert their android flagships to windows 8.1; the m8 and the g3. Samsung declined due to Microsofts recent acquisition of Nokia.

That would explain why both htc' and lg's mobile phone profits are within $8 million dollars of each other while unit shipments differed by over 10 million units; lg (14.5 million) vs (1.8- 3.7 million) *projected unit sales.


*HTC no longer discloses unit shipments, but we know htc was averaging about 1.2 million- 2.7 million phones sell-through per quarter for for their 2013 fiscal year vs a sell-in of 5 million per quarter.

As for Samsung they are currently being sued for reneging on royalty payments to microsoft.

Mark my words, the end of 2014 will not look favorably towards android vendors, and the iphone 6 will be the catalyst.

Cheers.

 

[Premium1]

Htc and lg are both tiny compared to apple and Samsung.

And that means? Still doesn't change the fact that apple didn't blow android out of the water with all of these things people claimed would cause apple to shoot to the top

 

[the_tech_eater]

And that means? Still doesn't change the fact that apple didn't blow android out of the water with all of these things people claimed would cause apple to shoot to the top

If you sell 1 million devices, and then the next quartet you sell 1.5 million, you're up 50%, but you're still a tiny company. Now, that's a hypothetical figure, but I used it to prove a point.

 

[Premium1]

If you sell 1 million devices, and then the next quartet you sell 1.5 million, you're up 50%, but you're still a tiny company. Now, that's a hypothetical figure, but I used it to prove a point.

Tiny company or not there is only so many people to buy devices, so even only selling 1.5 million devices like in the example, that is 1.5 million less potential customers.

 

[anon(4698833)]

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.

 

[anon(4698833)]

50

You could be right...except...

 

[Speedygi]

I would like to know how many unicorns it takes to make lemonade...

 

[FFR]

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.

 

[Zacharyw70]

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.

 

[Speedygi]

Some people would be upset if Apple created a lower end device, but I wouldn't. I would buy the devices just the same.

 

[Smply_Rcklss]

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

 

[natasftw]

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.

 

[Speedygi]

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.

 

[Tre Lawrence]

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.

 

[natasftw]

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.

 

[A895]

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