The point still stands though, insomuch as any company making nearly $10bn a quarter, where those profits are the lion's share of the market's total profits, probably isn't in as much trouble as the media has liked to portray.
And the original point of the article still stands - insomuch as market share alone is not a good indicator of a company's health.
Or do you agree with Stiggles that that article, and the concept of fair share profit analysis were nonsense?
But I see Apple as like Mercedes - looking for profit whilst market share is not an important. Samsung are more like Ford, high volume, large market share.
It's like comparing Apples to Watermelons - too different companies looking at different markets and both doing very well in their own ways.
I think it was skewed out as Apple came first and took a huge chunk of the market but they were never going to keep it all to themselves.
But you would be wrong to think that, apple and samsung compete in the very same market s3/i5 s4/5s are direct competitors to each other. One is on an upward curve one on a downward curve.
But you would be wrong to think that, apple and samsung compete in the very same market s3/i5 s4/5s are direct competitors to each other. One is on an upward curve one on a downward curve.
One quarter's results, where profits were still nearly $10bn, doesn't make that much of a downward curve.
One quarter's results, where profits were still nearly $10bn, doesn't make that much of a downward curve.
Still a curve downwards in relation to market share and profit simple as that. However if you wish to simply quote the present they are still doing well just not as well.
As I said previously a snapshot of apple performance without context one would be excused for thinking everything is rosy just as the article you linked to tries to portray. However the truth is that is business you can't just look at the present you have to predict years ahead and this is where the market is predicting trouble for apple.
I don't think that's what the article is saying at all. It simply says that market share alone doesn't tell the whole story.
No, it says that market share is one of the worst ways to evaluate the relative positions of competitors, and implies that everything is absolutely fine with a decreasing market share as long as you have a higher profit margin than your competitors, dances around making up a new figure of "ratio of profits to market share", or, as most people call it "profit margin", and suggests that's the all important figure to compare companies. Of course, this is all done in such way to 'explain' why Apple is fabulous and much better than other every company, and how those meanies saying Android is doing better are very naughty.
The eBook thing isn't looking good since Jobs' emails to Murdoch surfaced.
Pengiun settled this week hand over $75 Million. They probably knew this would turn out baldly. Macmillan, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster and Hachette had all settled with the DoJ.
Apple will probably sue the DoJ if they rule against them as they operate above the law
The e-mail, from Steve Jobs of Apple to James Murdoch of News Corporation, reads as if one old sport were trying to cajole another into joining a caper: “Throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream e-books market at $12.99 and $14.99.”
I don't need to explain the true reasons (in any great detail) to know as well as you do that its obviously not as simple as you suggested.
But off the top of my head:
1. I'm not sure Apple have run out of ideas. For the least few years all we hear each year is the lame, lazy journalism about how the new iPhone is "evolution, not revolution" etc. And yet, put an iPhone 5 next to iPhone 3GS, and its world's apart.
And yes - that applies equally to the S4. For whatever reason, people's expectations have become wholly unrealistic.
2. Again, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the lawsuits, its pretty difficult to dispute that smartphones, since the iPhone came out, have largely aped the iPhone.
Is it really world apart? It looks very similar, runs the same OS which hasn't changed in years and very little features have been added either. Since 2007, the iphone has barely changed while others have.
No, it says that market share is one of the worst ways to evaluate the relative positions of competitors, and implies that everything is absolutely fine with a decreasing market share as long as you have a higher profit margin than your competitors, dances around making up a new figure of "ratio of profits to market share", or, as most people call it "profit margin", and suggests that's the all important figure to compare companies. Of course, this is all done in such way to 'explain' why Apple is fabulous and much better than other every company, and how those meanies saying Android is doing better are very naughty.
Actually, I can see why you like it.
No, it says that if you only look at market share it is one of the worst ways to evaluate the relative positions of competitors.
I don't "like it", I agree with it.
Suppose we both run a business in the same market.
I have 75% of the market share.
You have 25% of the market share.
Based on that information and that information alone, who's business is doing better?
Is it really world apart? It looks very similar, runs the same OS which hasn't changed in years and very little features have been added either. Since 2007, the iphone has barely changed while others have.
Its utterly absurd to say that the iPhone 5 is barely any different to the original iPhone.
Its utterly absurd to say that the iPhone 5 is barely any different to the original iPhone.
Is it really?
The design of the case may be different but the Home button is in the same place. The same rancid and boring placement of icons on the screen which even you cannot deny hasn't changed since 2007.
Feature wise what else has been added? Precious little.
Its utterly absurd to say that the iPhone 5 is barely any different to the original iPhone.
I would agree that the software it runs is barely different to the software the original iPhone ran, save for a few stolen features from Android and that iOS users are now allowed to have their own wallpapers.
I wouldn't say the same about the hardware however, even if it is still lacklustre compared to its competitors.
Comments
Except for last quarter of course...
I'm pretty sure profits grew. It was only the rate at which they grew that fell.
you may want to check that. Revenue up, profit down.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22274324
It has a lot to do with the relative 'spin' applied to Apple at the moment.
The point still stands though, insomuch as any company making nearly $10bn a quarter, where those profits are the lion's share of the market's total profits, probably isn't in as much trouble as the media has liked to portray.
And the original point of the article still stands - insomuch as market share alone is not a good indicator of a company's health.
Or do you agree with Stiggles that that article, and the concept of fair share profit analysis were nonsense?
But you would be wrong to think that, apple and samsung compete in the very same market s3/i5 s4/5s are direct competitors to each other. One is on an upward curve one on a downward curve.
One quarter's results, where profits were still nearly $10bn, doesn't make that much of a downward curve.
Market share is very important in the phone industry, particularly because so much hinges on the third-party and developer support for the products.
Still a curve downwards in relation to market share and profit simple as that. However if you wish to simply quote the present they are still doing well just not as well.
As I said previously a snapshot of apple performance without context one would be excused for thinking everything is rosy just as the article you linked to tries to portray. However the truth is that is business you can't just look at the present you have to predict years ahead and this is where the market is predicting trouble for apple.
No-one has said that market share isn't important. Just that its not the only measure of a company's health.
Do you want to argue that third party and developer support for iOS has some sort of significant decline?
I argue that would be one of the fears of investors.
And that seems exactly what that article is implying...
It is fine for you to behave like an Ostrich it will be fatal for apple to do likewise.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/24/apple-ebooks-antitrust-judge/
A fear of what may happen in the future isn't the same as what is currently the case.
I don't think that's what the article is saying at all. It simply says that market share alone doesn't tell the whole story.
As is illustrated by this simple, albeit extreme, example:
Question
Company A has 25% market share. Company Z has 75% market share. Which company is doing better?
Answer:
With market share alone, there’s simply no way to know or tell. Company A might be bringing in all the profits and company Z might be going bankrupt.
I'm not behaving like anything.
I'm simply saying:
1. Reports of Apple being in some sort of serious trouble as of now, and based on current figures, are greatly exaggerated.
2. One point on line does not make a curve or a trend.
The eBook thing isn't looking good since Jobs' emails to Murdoch surfaced.
No, it says that market share is one of the worst ways to evaluate the relative positions of competitors, and implies that everything is absolutely fine with a decreasing market share as long as you have a higher profit margin than your competitors, dances around making up a new figure of "ratio of profits to market share", or, as most people call it "profit margin", and suggests that's the all important figure to compare companies. Of course, this is all done in such way to 'explain' why Apple is fabulous and much better than other every company, and how those meanies saying Android is doing better are very naughty.
Actually, I can see why you like it.
Pengiun settled this week hand over $75 Million. They probably knew this would turn out baldly. Macmillan, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster and Hachette had all settled with the DoJ.
Apple will probably sue the DoJ if they rule against them as they operate above the law
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/23/penguin_agrees_to_pay_75m_ebooks/
The Murdoch story here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/technology/us-now-paints-apple-as-ringmaster-in-its-lawsuit-on-e-book-price-fixing.html?_r=0
Is it really world apart? It looks very similar, runs the same OS which hasn't changed in years and very little features have been added either. Since 2007, the iphone has barely changed while others have.
No, it says that if you only look at market share it is one of the worst ways to evaluate the relative positions of competitors.
I don't "like it", I agree with it.
Suppose we both run a business in the same market.
I have 75% of the market share.
You have 25% of the market share.
Based on that information and that information alone, who's business is doing better?
Its utterly absurd to say that the iPhone 5 is barely any different to the original iPhone.
It says everything that I posted. It doesn't just say "if you only look at market share".
Is it really?
The design of the case may be different but the Home button is in the same place. The same rancid and boring placement of icons on the screen which even you cannot deny hasn't changed since 2007.
Feature wise what else has been added? Precious little.
I would agree that the software it runs is barely different to the software the original iPhone ran, save for a few stolen features from Android and that iOS users are now allowed to have their own wallpapers.
I wouldn't say the same about the hardware however, even if it is still lacklustre compared to its competitors.