Apple becomes top phone maker by profits (beating Nokia, etc)(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Apple becomes top phone maker by profits (beating Nokia, etc)
http://www.reuters.com/article/COMSRV/idUSN1051937420091110
41 comments
So much for all the analysts on Wall Street that predicted doom. As a shareholder, I've learned to ignore everything the "experts" say about Apple.
[deleted]
Even more amazing when you consider Apple has been artificially limiting themselves to only one carrier in the US. If they had launched a CDMA & GSM iPhone at the same time I don't think it's crazy to speculate their market-share could easily be 10% higher right now.
Maybe a little crazy.
1. By locking in with a&tt they got concessions that Verizon was not willing to grant, which must have had some effect on the phone's popularity. (Visual voice mail, no carrier mark on the phone, a very good subsidy (though, initially, no subsidy)...)
2. By only targeting GSM, they drastically simplified the engineering required for the device. The recent comments from an anonymous engineer on the Pink project made it clear that targeting both GSM and CDMA was a huge mistake for them. My understanding is that the two radios are not simply interchangeable. Building an iPhone for both would have required coming up with two radically different internal designs. This would have required engineering hours which would likely have delayed the phone. (or the 3g, or the 3gs) And that delay would naturally have cost market share.
So, it is pretty hard to say what would be different if Apple had a phone that ran on other carriers. And, it is a two way street, it sure doesn't look like Verizon plans on having the iPhone any time soon.
1. By locking in with a&tt they got concessions that Verizon was not willing to grant, which must have had some effect on the phone's popularity. (Visual voice mail, no carrier mark on the phone, a very good subsidy (though, initially, no subsidy)...)
2. By only targeting GSM, they drastically simplified the engineering required for the device. The recent comments from an anonymous engineer on the Pink project made it clear that targeting both GSM and CDMA was a huge mistake for them. My understanding is that the two radios are not simply interchangeable. Building an iPhone for both would have required coming up with two radically different internal designs. This would have required engineering hours which would likely have delayed the phone. (or the 3g, or the 3gs) And that delay would naturally have cost market share.
So, it is pretty hard to say what would be different if Apple had a phone that ran on other carriers. And, it is a two way street, it sure doesn't look like Verizon plans on having the iPhone any time soon.
I just went to Nokia's regional site for my country and the products page there lists - get this - 135 different phone models!! How does something like this happen? And I have absolutely no idea what the features on any of them are. How am I supposed to pick one?
It happens when you've been in business for more than a few years. Every phone manufacturer except Apple and Palm has this "problem".
The local Nokia website allows me to choose a phone by features (e.g: bar, slide, etc; should it have bluetooth, wifi, GPS, etc). This -again - is typical of every phone manufacturer on this planet that has more than three models to sell.
The local Nokia website allows me to choose a phone by features (e.g: bar, slide, etc; should it have bluetooth, wifi, GPS, etc). This -again - is typical of every phone manufacturer on this planet that has more than three models to sell.
> Every phone manufacturer except Apple and Palm has this "problem".
Even Apple faced a version of this problem back when they only made Macs. For a few years, just before Jobs' return, the marketing for Mac models was atrocious. Dozens of Power Macs and Performas, and 3 different lines of laptops, each with a weird 3-4 digit number to denote one model from another. One of Jobs' first "fixes" was paring down Apple's product line down to the four square product matrix that's been a staple of his keynotes since then.
Even Apple faced a version of this problem back when they only made Macs. For a few years, just before Jobs' return, the marketing for Mac models was atrocious. Dozens of Power Macs and Performas, and 3 different lines of laptops, each with a weird 3-4 digit number to denote one model from another. One of Jobs' first "fixes" was paring down Apple's product line down to the four square product matrix that's been a staple of his keynotes since then.
Initially there were only one version of iPod. Now check how many versions are there in the market.
4. Which is pretty close to the optimal number of choices to give potential customers.
Are you complaining about choice? I just checked out their US site and it is pretty straight forward to search based on features etc.
I can understand finding faults with Nokia for not being able to compete effectively against iPhone. But then which other mobile maker is right now able to do that. iPhone is pretty much a new product category. And Apple gets consumers and software like few others.
But I cannot understand finding faults with the choice of phones Nokia provides.
I can understand finding faults with Nokia for not being able to compete effectively against iPhone. But then which other mobile maker is right now able to do that. iPhone is pretty much a new product category. And Apple gets consumers and software like few others.
But I cannot understand finding faults with the choice of phones Nokia provides.
Yes, I'm complaining about choice. I used the filters on the left and was still left with 28 phones to choose from. I'm sorry, but I'm just not willing to put any serious effort into comparing 28 different models that I know nothing about when their competition makes it so much easier not to screw up.
I agree choice can be confusing. And that is why Apple products standout.
Maybe I should have clarified what I like about choice in phones that Nokia or others provide. One aspect of choice which I like is the different pricing options. The mobile phones are needed by people all over the world with varying purchasing powers. Everybody cannot or does not want to afford the total cost of ownership of iPhone or even Nokia N97 or Droid. But there are billions who want to make phone calls.
Maybe I should have clarified what I like about choice in phones that Nokia or others provide. One aspect of choice which I like is the different pricing options. The mobile phones are needed by people all over the world with varying purchasing powers. Everybody cannot or does not want to afford the total cost of ownership of iPhone or even Nokia N97 or Droid. But there are billions who want to make phone calls.
Too much choice is overwhelming and confusing. This has been observed many times. Search google on "psychology too many choices". http://www.physorg.com/news127404469.html
Not to mention having dozens of models shows a lack of focus.
Not to mention having dozens of models shows a lack of focus.
For example, Apple's product line prior to the return of Steve Jobs.
This is all the more amazing since they have one super-high end product vs the balanced product portfolio of Nokia.
You'd have to imagine this makes Apple's position a bit tenuous.
You'd have to imagine this makes Apple's position a bit tenuous.
Nokia has a balanced portfolio of crap. I used nokia phones for 4 years before getting an iPhone. Their menu systems look like they are designed by programmers. They are so hard to use. I mean, you learn to live with it, but it got to the point where I was checking days off my calendar until the 3gs was released (figuratively speaking, I don't own a calendar).
I had one phone that would always call people from my pocket because it had these 2 buttons on the side that if pressed at the same time, would activate voice dialing, and it would pick up random words from conversation and call whoever it thought you said. That made for some awkward moments. Oh, and there was no way to disable that "feature".
When you are choosing between $79 anything phone + 2yr contract, or a $199 iPhone + 2yr contract, it's kind of a no-brainer, unless you want a cheap phone for some reason, like you happen to be really accident prone.
I had one phone that would always call people from my pocket because it had these 2 buttons on the side that if pressed at the same time, would activate voice dialing, and it would pick up random words from conversation and call whoever it thought you said. That made for some awkward moments. Oh, and there was no way to disable that "feature".
When you are choosing between $79 anything phone + 2yr contract, or a $199 iPhone + 2yr contract, it's kind of a no-brainer, unless you want a cheap phone for some reason, like you happen to be really accident prone.
What happens if you lose the cheap 200$ phone, do you still have to pay for the 2yr contract? Do you get another phone for the same contract or do you have to make another contract?
Anyway, that is not my experience at all with Nokia. They are very popular here in Europe because there is no carrier lock-in and anyone can get any phone that they want. This means that the best phones tend to win, not the ones that are the most subsidized. The high-end Nokia series are N (multimedia) and E (business).
Your two-button key combination is either a bug, or you didn't lock your keypad.
Anyway, that is not my experience at all with Nokia. They are very popular here in Europe because there is no carrier lock-in and anyone can get any phone that they want. This means that the best phones tend to win, not the ones that are the most subsidized. The high-end Nokia series are N (multimedia) and E (business).
Your two-button key combination is either a bug, or you didn't lock your keypad.
It was a flip phone and the buttons were on the side. no way to lock them. I checked the manual and that combination was the way to activate voice mode...
Before I got my iPhone, I considered Nokias to be the best. In Europe the situation is different. You guys get way better phones than we do. I lived in France for a while and when I came back to the US, all the phones I could buy here looked 5 years old.
Our contracts aren't tied to a specific phone (except for the iPhone), so if you lose your phone you can replace it with just about anything that would work with that carrier. I have a friend who loses his phone every few months and he usually buys a cheap replacement on eBay.
Before I got my iPhone, I considered Nokias to be the best. In Europe the situation is different. You guys get way better phones than we do. I lived in France for a while and when I came back to the US, all the phones I could buy here looked 5 years old.
Our contracts aren't tied to a specific phone (except for the iPhone), so if you lose your phone you can replace it with just about anything that would work with that carrier. I have a friend who loses his phone every few months and he usually buys a cheap replacement on eBay.
Pretty sure the iPhone contracts aren't tied to a specific phone. I'm not in the US, but I'm pretty sure that you can't tie a GSM SIM Card to a phone. Take the Sim out and put it in a n97 and it should work.
Oops I didn't mean to say that an iPhone contract is tied to a specific phone. You could always swap the sim to a different phone.
what I was trying to say was that AT&T has a special iPhone contract that is separate from their regular contracts, in that it comes with a $30/month data plan.
what I was trying to say was that AT&T has a special iPhone contract that is separate from their regular contracts, in that it comes with a $30/month data plan.
Really? I'd argue the opposite. I argued the opposite last year, when everybody said that Apple's focusing on the high end would crash them during the recession.
Apple focuses on quality, and charges decently for what they offer, I bought this computer a year ago, and it's still performing splendidly, and I expect it to continue for a long while. Meanwhile, the people I know who are looking for computers are thinking more and more about the low-end Macs, because while they're expensive, they're not computers you'll have to replace any time soon. If you only have a little money, you make sure it goes to something really good instead of to waste.
Apple's position is only tenuous if you think another company can make a better phone and price it more cheaply. I think neither will happen.
Apple focuses on quality, and charges decently for what they offer, I bought this computer a year ago, and it's still performing splendidly, and I expect it to continue for a long while. Meanwhile, the people I know who are looking for computers are thinking more and more about the low-end Macs, because while they're expensive, they're not computers you'll have to replace any time soon. If you only have a little money, you make sure it goes to something really good instead of to waste.
Apple's position is only tenuous if you think another company can make a better phone and price it more cheaply. I think neither will happen.
The $999 macbook is an example of exactly the sort of downward market movement which I'm speaking about.
You mentioned no downward market movement whatsoever. Reread your comment.
The reasonably rational person would infer from my comparison of Apple's two high-end product offerings vs Nokia's balanced offering and my saying that the former leads to a more tenuous market position that the intent was clearly to advocate introducing a lower-end unit with a cheaper data plan (the analogue to the $999 macbook).
Well, for what it's worth, I inferred that what you were saying was that Apple, betting everything on a single, high end product was risky, and that if people decided to start focusing on value purchases, or Apple couldn't convince people that their brand/product was so much better, that they would have come crashing down.
No, they wouldn't, because you didn't say that. They would instead infer merely that you were suggesting Apple wouldn't remain in their position long, because that's all you said.
[deleted]
I think unalone has a point. My reading of your comment was along the lines of "With only 1 product (essentially), Apple is in a tenuous position because if the iPhone is unsuccessful or is beaten (by Android or whatever) then they're completely out of the market. Whereas if Nokia had 50% of their phones fail completely, they'd still have 60+ phones to enable them to compete in the market."
So if a handset manufacturer manages to build a better iPhone then suddenly Apple will sell no more iPhones? I don't think so. None of the handset manufacturers have the Apple ecosystem: App store, iTunes Store (video+music), nice desktop integration, OS X.
A phone with worse camera, less memory, slower processor, more expensive etc. than the rivals, from Apple I think could still outsell them, because of the Apple ecosystem. Oh wait... ;)
A phone with worse camera, less memory, slower processor, more expensive etc. than the rivals, from Apple I think could still outsell them, because of the Apple ecosystem. Oh wait... ;)
Apple is pretty good at staying ahead of the pack. A good example is the iPod line. The Classic was the original and the only iPod for several years. It was a high-end product selling for over $300. Eventually the market shifted towards smaller/cheaper players the Apple was able to make the Mini/Nano the most successful iPod while the Classic is now a niche product. Now the market is shifting towards convergence so the Nano gets more features and the Touch/iPhone become the future of the iPod. It will be interesting to see where they go from here. I don't think they'll make any big moves towards diversity until the market proves there is demand for it.
$99/199/299 is not "super high end".
[deleted]
putitin(1)
If anyone had predicted, when the iPhone was announced, that within 3 years Apple would be making the largest profits of any phone-maker, they would have been laughed out of the room.