[calico_pie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zack06

Sorry but that analogy has no relevance to the real market events of the past few years. It's pointless dreaming up hypothetical figures if they do not even remotely correlate to the reality of the situation.

Apple in 2007 had close to 90% of the mobile market with no competition. Everyone was pretty much dazed by the iPhone and had no idea how to react. Microsoft and Nokia rubbished it, while others sought to compete, Google included.

The iPhone ruled the market near unimpeded, all the way through to 2010, with its variants becoming some of the world's best selling smartphones.

It was Apple's arrogance arising from the iPhone's monumental success that allowed Android to take-off in the first place. Had the Verizon and Sprint iPhones in the US and availability on T-Mobile, Orange and Vodafone in the UK come sooner, it could have been a very very different story today.

The market has indeed been expanding, but Apple's sales have not. One only has to look at the launch figures to see a marked pattern. The sales have been falling while the market as a whole has been expanding. The iPhone 5S sold less at launch than the iPhone 5 while competitor devices such as the Galaxy S3 and S4 are starting to rival iPhone sales figures. Consumer interest in Apple is waning and it certainly isn't the pretty picture you painted it out to be.

Saying that Apple's falling market share and declining sales are disappointing is not "doom and gloom", it is realism.

Of course its relevant.

If the initial market is dominated by higher priced devices, then if your product is a higher priced product you will command high market share.

If the market then expands, and becomes dominated by lower priced devices, then all other things being equal then the higher priced products will lose market share.

The point isn't whether or not iPhone sales are as strong as they were, the point is whether or not market share alone is necessarily the best gauge of how well a product is doing.

[Stiggles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

Well, I suppose we could just pretend that the thing the OP found interesting wasn't that Apple's market share had fallen...

But who would we be kidding?

You need to stop assuming. Lately it's you who keeps starting these idiotic arguments.

[jabbamk1]

Ok so seeing as everyone ignored my original post.

The mobile phone market grew 39.9% YOY in Q3 2013.

Android shipments grew by 50.1% and Apple shipments grew by 25.6% YOY.

So the market has grown and both Apple and Android have seen an increase in shipments as well. So despite Apple seeing its total volumes increase and reaching new record third quarter volumes, saw its market share decline during 3Q13

Taking the average price of the smartphones at $620 for Apple and $280 for Android we can work out that revenue for Apple devices would work out to be around $20,956m and for Android would be $59,258m. Of course these are just estimates from extrapolating averages and using average smartphone cost.

Previous post-

Quote:

According to the IDC.

In Q3 2013, Android smartphone shipments were up 51% YOY with 211m units shipped worldwide. Market share also increased from 74.9% to 81%.

Apple smartphone shipments were up 25% YOY with 33.8m units shipped worldwde.
Market share decreased from 14.4% to 12.9%.

Windows Phone saw shipments increase 156% YOY from 3.7m shipped in Q3 2013 to 9.5m shipped in Q3 2013 worldwide. Market share also shot up from 2.0% to 3.6% total.

From this we can see that all operating systems have seen an increase in shipments YOY. (Windows Phone growing the most).

[calico_pie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordman

Posting market share updates do not equate to posting negative stories about apple, the fact you think it reflects that way upon apple says a little more about you CP. As does your need to jump into every thread guns ablazing when you think apple are being slighted.

In relation to the 5c there is nothing to say that it was not about seeking market share either. What we do in these situations CP is speculate what the reasoning behind such decisions may be, you will find in life there is not always a link with the definitive answer. However perhaps you can give a reason why apple would release a second cheaper iphone other than market share?

Quakers has his view but it is very simplistic I'm afraid. Less market share to a degree was ok for apple when it was still healthy and profits were rising. However market share is declining to low levels, in some cases not far ahead of WP. All the while profits have decreased year on year. The 5c was an attempt to boost market share and profits at the same time.

As a manufacturer yes they are still number 2 but if you cannot see the reasons why you would want your ecosystem dominant or vying for it i can't help you. However you like analogies so take the ps3 and xbox. If the ps3 sells 100 million consoles and the xbox sells 5 million but profits are largely the same between them, who do you think is in trouble in the long run?

No - I think it reflects on you.

I think we both know full well that if it had been a story showing that Apple's market share had significantly increased, then hell would have had to freeze over before you posted about it here.

All you're doing with the 5C is making a speculation that happens to fit in with the downward trend in market share.

If they were that interested in market share, they would probably have released a much cheaper phone.

If Quackers view, which takes into account the makeup of products within a sector, and how that reflects on market share figures, then where does that leave your view which takes into account market share figures, and market share figures alone?

Even more simplistic, that's where.

[Stiggles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

I'm not finding anything difficult to grasp.

Oh i think you are!

Quote:

Quackers' post above explains why marker share alone isn't necessarily very revealing.

You keep talking about the 5C with reference to "an attempt to gain market share", but I'm not aware of that ever being said by anyone other than pundits prior its launch, who thought it would maybe be a much cheaper phone.

I'm sure it is just a healthy interest, and the fact that the vast majority of your posts revolve around negative stories about Apple is just a complete coincidence.

It's a negative story for Blackberry as well. However i see once again you missed that out just to peddle your "oh my god! Someone picking on my fave company apple..." Grow up. You use any thread which mentions apple to peddle this nonsense out.

Quackers post isn't that spot on. Just because he couldn't get a 5S means absolutely nothing. I couldn't get a new Nexus 5 today when i found that CPW had dropped them back to £298. It just means that shop didn't have any!

Re the BIB, who did you expect to say it? The lord himself?

[calico_pie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiggles

Oh i think you do!

Quackers post isn't that spot on. Just because he couldn't get a 5S means absolutely nothing. I couldn't get a new Nexus 5 today when i found that CPW had dropped them back to £298. It just means that shop didn't have any!

Re the BIB, who did you expect to say it? The lord himself?

That he couldn't get a 5S isn't the point.

The point is that as markets expand and become dominated by lower priced products, then that will obviously have a negative impact on the market share commanded by higher priced products.

Its not exactly complicated.

Nice touch of sarcasm there - the point was that other than pre release speculation, there is nothing to say that the aim of the 5C was to drive up market share.

[Stiggles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

That he couldn't get a 5S isn't the point.

The point is that as markets expand and become dominated by lower priced products, then that will obviously have a negative impact on the market share commanded by higher priced products.

Its not exactly complicated.

No, it's not complicated. However people like you attempt to make it that way.

It makes absolutely no difference. The market share is the way it is. Android up front gaining along with Windows phone with apple and BB declining. That's it. No complications, just it.

Quote:

Nice touch of sarcasm there - the point was that other than pre release speculation, there is nothing to say that the aim of the 5C was to drive up market share.

Are these the same pundits you turn to when you try to back something up?....

[swordman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

No - I think it reflects on you.

I think we both know full well that if it had been a story showing that Apple's market share had significantly increased, then hell would have had to freeze over before you posted about it here.

All you're doing with the 5C is making a speculation that happens to fit in with the downward trend in market share.

If they were that interested in market share, they would probably have released a much cheaper phone.

If Quackers view, which takes into account the makeup of products within a sector, and how that reflects on market share figures, then where does that leave your view which takes into account market share figures, and market share figures alone?

Even more simplistic, that's where.

Quackers post is just figures plucked from the air to demonstrate his view and bears no resemblance to real world facts. However I can see why you are holding it up as some sort of definitive fact.

There is no proof of this market dominated by cheaper products, we have had this debate and you were shown to be wrong then. And before you say when, it was when I originally posted the figures that Jabba has posted.

As i previously said you are keen on analogies, beans, soup etc what is your comment on my console analogy as it ties in with yours and quackers theory.

to finish you have no theory behind the launch of the 5c then?

[tdenson]

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordman

You really are quite sad.

As the market research was conducted by OS, how would individual company figures have been possible. In the three sentences my post constituted, I mentioned android rising, W8 rising and ios falling despite the 5c.

The most pertinent facts, if you wish to cry about apple falling share feel free but shooting the messenger will accomplish nothing

Sorry, I meant to say made no mention of those other companies in a negative context.

[swordman]

Again it was by OS! In what way would other companies merit a negative comment exactly. Android is android and is rising, W8 is rising and has secured third spot as was its intention at the outset. The only really negative in this figures is ios, obviously save for BB which is all but dead and pointless commenting on.

[calico_pie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordman

Quackers post is just figures plucked from the air to demonstrate his view and bears no resemblance to real world facts. However I can see why you are holding it up as some sort of definitive fact.

There is no proof of this market dominated by cheaper products, we have had this debate and you were shown to be wrong then. And before you say when, it was when I originally posted the figures that Jabba has posted.

As i previously said you are keen on analogies, beans, soup etc what is your comment on my console analogy as it ties in with yours and quackers theory.

to finish you have no theory behind the launch of the 5c then?

No resemblance to real world facts?

Of course they do.

In pretty much any sector you care to think of, more lower cost products will sell more than high cost products.

For example, Ford sell more cars than Bentley.

Sony sell more tvs than Bose.

I literally don't believe you don't know this.

The 5C was hardly any different to what they'd done before - last year's phone at a lower cost.

[swordman]

I love all these comparisons to products on the market that bear no relevance to the subject at hand. Those examples you quote make my point firstly Sony sell more TVs as their Tvs are better not because they are cheaper. Secondly Bentley cars are more expensive because they are a premium product, cost more to produce and contain elements not found in cheaper cars.

None of that is applicable to the iphone in any way, either of those examples demonstrates the flaw in your argument. Where is your evidence that lower cost is the overriding factor here in relation to android sales? you don't have any that's why.

As a general rule Android phones cost less agreed. However those phones competing against the iphone models are not only cheaper but better. If the iphone was superior it would be selling better and not be being outsold by those competing phones, regardless of the additional cost. Additionally apples profits would not be falling quarter on quarter as cheaper iphone options are chosen.

If you look at the iphones market share in isolation it may look ok but to ignore the continual decline as if it is irrelevant is simply foolhardy. Whether you accept the simple truth or not profit and market share were the reasons behind the release of the 5c.

Apple under Jobs it could be argued would forego some market share for excess profit and the iphone was the epitome of that. However with both profit and market share on the decline action had to be taken hence the 5c. For clear and obvious reasons that I have explained to you many times a cheap iphone 5c would have been more of a disaster in the long run.

[kidspud]

[quote=swordman;70818257

Apple under Jobs it could be argued would forego some market share for excess profit and the iphone was the epitome of that. However with both profit and market share on the decline action had to be taken hence the 5c. For clear and obvious reasons that I have explained to you many times a cheap iphone 5c would have been more of a disaster in the long run.[/QUOTE]

You have often said this, yes.

However, it has never stood up as an argument. There are numerous examples of apple releasing lower spec and cheaper versions (but not cheap) of their products when Jobs was alive and in charge. The fact you ignore these examples and claim in some way the iPhone is special, does not hide the fact.

Of course, you stating now what you believe a dead man would or wouldn't allow is meaningless. It's best to look at what he actually did rather than speculate.

[swordman]

Because all other products are pretty irrelevant compared to the iphone. The iphone changed the game for apple more than any other product and (i think) over half their profit is derived from the iphone.

Many of the 'other' products are a way to create the Halo effect and desire to aspire to an iphone. Keeping the iphone elite and high priced worked superbly and for that very reason did not need to be changed. The iphone is (or at least was) not comparable to any other apple product and should not been considered as such.

However a low cost/cheap iphone 5c did not materialise (nor has any apple product ever been considered cheap to own) but if it would have, it would indeed have sold very well. However in the long run this desire and elite mystique around the iphone would have been lost, never to be regained. In that scenario the iphone would have had to compete simply as a normal phone and as it currently stands it would not be able to do so.

[calico_pie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordman

I love all these comparisons to products on the market that bear no relevance to the subject at hand. Those examples you quote make my point firstly Sony sell more TVs as their Tvs are better not because they are cheaper. Secondly Bentley cars are more expensive because they are a premium product, cost more to produce and contain elements not found in cheaper cars.

None of that is applicable to the iphone in any way, either of those examples demonstrates the flaw in your argument. Where is your evidence that lower cost is the overriding factor here in relation to android sales? you don't have any that's why.

As a general rule Android phones cost less agreed. However those phones competing against the iphone models are not only cheaper but better. If the iphone was superior it would be selling better and not be being outsold by those competing phones, regardless of the additional cost. Additionally apples profits would not be falling quarter on quarter as cheaper iphone options are chosen.

If you look at the iphones market share in isolation it may look ok but to ignore the continual decline as if it is irrelevant is simply foolhardy. Whether you accept the simple truth or not profit and market share were the reasons behind the release of the 5c.

Apple under Jobs it could be argued would forego some market share for excess profit and the iphone was the epitome of that. However with both profit and market share on the decline action had to be taken hence the 5c. For clear and obvious reasons that I have explained to you many times a cheap iphone 5c would have been more of a disaster in the long run.

Sony TVs are better than Bose TVs?

It's pretty simple - the smartphone sector is much like any other sector - a handful of high end products making up a smaller proportion of sales, and a larger number of low to mid end phones making up a larger proportion of sales.

I'm not sure what you're saying about how the iPhone would sell more if it was better - it already seems to sell pretty well. Not to mention that "better" is a purely subjective opinion.

You could say that about any phone, like this:

If the S4 was superior it would be selling better and not be being outsold by those competing phones, regardless of the additional cost.

Doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

The whole point is that a big factor in the fall in market share is due to the larger number of low to mid range products available.

A much cheaper iPhone would undoubtedly have helped increase market share.

But they didn't release one.

Conclusion? Apple don't see market share as the be all and end all.

[Zack06]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

Of course its relevant.

If the initial market is dominated by higher priced devices, then if your product is a higher priced product you will command high market share.

If the market then expands, and becomes dominated by lower priced devices, then all other things being equal then the higher priced products will lose market share.

The point isn't whether or not iPhone sales are as strong as they were, the point is whether or not market share alone is necessarily the best gauge of how well a product is doing.

Nope, it is not relevant at all. That analogy does not apply to Apple's situation, so it is not relevant.

Market share and sales go in tandem in order to see the bigger picture of the situation. The reality is, Apple's market share is falling and their sales are plateauing along with that. As for your remarks on pricing, that would be true if the majority of mobile devices were bought outside of any carrier or contract, but again, this is not the reality.

There are several high-end Android devices which are sold on contract for as much or sometimes more than an iPhone, and yet they are growing in market share, particularly leaders like Samsung and more recently LG, so once again the point has no correlation with reality.

The point is, Apple are starting to face diminishing returns. Falling market share is extremely relevant, as low market share indicates a weak hold on the market which leads directly to lower sales and falling profits. We have already seen iPhone sales falling, and it was reported in October 2013 that Apple's profits have been constantly declining as well. Go figure.

[swordman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

Sony TVs are better than Bose TVs?
It's pretty simple - the smartphone sector is much like any other sector - a handful of high end products making up a smaller proportion of sales, and a larger number of low to mid end phones making up a larger proportion of sales.
I'm not sure what you're saying about how the iPhone would sell more if it was better - it already seems to sell pretty well. Not to mention that "better" is a purely subjective opinion.
You could say that about any phone, like this:
If the S4 was superior it would be selling better and not be being outsold by those competing phones, regardless of the additional cost.
Doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.
The whole point is that a big factor in the fall in market share is due to the larger number of low to mid range products available.
A much cheaper iPhone would undoubtedly have helped increase market share.
But they didn't release one.
Conclusion? Apple don't see market share as the be all and end all.

Umm yes.

You have no evidence of your claim that the market is amde up of low end phones at all.

As I have told you many times I am confident that the majority of android sales are phones that could be considered equal to or better than the iphone. They may be cheaper but that is a more telling statistic, why do people no longer think paying more for the iphone is worth it.

What is selling better than the s4 then exactly? Don't forget Samsung don't have a one size fits all approach they have several premium phones so don't rely on one single model.

I have explained the 5c reasons just now.

[calico_pie]

Put it this way, which has fallen the most:

A. The iPhone's share of the market only including comparably priced phones?

B. The iPhone's share of the entire market?

Or instead of focusing on the iPhone, what about swapping "iPhone" for "high end smartphones".

Had the market share for high end smartphones declined?

If so why?

[calico_pie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordman

Umm yes.

You have no evidence of your claim that the market is amde up of low end phones at all.

As I have told you many times I am confident that the majority of android sales are phones that could be considered equal to or better than the iphone. They may be cheaper but that is a more telling statistic, why do people no longer think paying more for the iphone is worth it.

What is selling better than the s4 then exactly? Don't forget Samsung don't have a one size fits all approach they have several premium phones so don't rely on one single model.

I have explained the 5c reasons just now.

We've discussed this before.

There is plenty of evidence, namely sales figures for high end phones, and total smartphone sales figures.

Never mind the fact that it's just common sense.

I didn't say other phones were selling better than the S4 - I just said the same as you did about the iPhone - that it would sell more if it was better. It's meaningless.

[swordman]

But there are no comparably priced phones are there and in there lies the problem for Apple. The iphone costs more and increasingly is being seen as not worth the extra cost.

[calico_pie]

Comparably priced, not the exact same price.

Use your imagination - the top end models by the likes of Sony, Samsung and HTC.

Or look at Samsung - what do you think they sell more of...

A. The S4?

B. All their other phones combined?

[swordman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

We've discussed this before.

There is plenty of evidence, namely sales figures for high end phones, and total smartphone sales figures.

Never mind the fact that it's just common sense.

I didn't say other phones were selling better than the S4 - I just said the same as you did about the iPhone - that it would sell more if it was better. It's meaningless.

Its not though is it.

Android phones competing against the iphone are selling far in excess of the iphone. Therefore no longer is the iphone seen as the phone to have in the same way. Of course many phones are sold based on their price but if the iphone is not the choice in either instance where does it go from here.

When people see the choice of android handsets, the choices of larger screens even phablets, stylus input, integration between manufacturers, advertising that they can connect there smartphone direct to their TV etc it makes the iphone seem isolated and maybe a little outdated.

[swordman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

Comparably priced, not the exact same price.

Use your imagination - the top end models by the likes of Sony, Samsung and HTC.

Or look at Samsung - what do you think they sell more of...

A. The S4?

B. All their other phones combined?

No not even comparable in price, take the 4s the myriad of choices for far far less than that phone are endless. Only those fairly desperate would pay that kind of money for a 4s even you can see that surely.

All their other phones so?

[kidspud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordman

Because all other products are pretty irrelevant compared to the iphone. The iphone changed the game for apple more than any other product and (i think) over half their profit is derived from the iphone.

Many of the 'other' products are a way to create the Halo effect and desire to aspire to an iphone. Keeping the iphone elite and high priced worked superbly and for that very reason did not need to be changed. The iphone is (or at least was) not comparable to any other apple product and should not been considered as such.

However a low cost/cheap iphone 5c did not materialise (nor has any apple product ever been considered cheap to own) but if it would have, it would indeed have sold very well. However in the long run this desire and elite mystique around the iphone would have been lost, never to be regained. In that scenario the iphone would have had to compete simply as a normal phone and as it currently stands it would not be able to do so.

Is that so you can use your cop out argument, or for any other logical reason?

The iPhone has followed the same product maturity strategy as every other apple product in recent times.

[swordman]

The fact you don't understand what part the iphone plays in Apples strategy is not unusual.

And now just like every other product is declining in the same way

When a product makes you two thirds of your profits sometimes better left alone,

http://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-profit-2012-8

however you carry on with your comparison to every other failing apple product.

There is an old saying: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. is the definition of ..