
If it turns out that they really did electrocute that poor Chinese lass, then they can expect their remaning sales volumes to plummet in the very near future.
Apple is experiencing a brutal slowdown in global iPhone sales as rivals wolf down an increasing share of the smartphone market, it's claimed. While Cupertino's competitors have performed well so far this year, Apple's own sales have spluttered along, according to a report from market research firm IHS iSuppli. “Apple’s …
I think it is pretty unlikely. Lets not forget that a lot of kit gets abused, there's a lot of fakes about and then there's those who like to try to get a pay out.
Samsung's sales aren't great either. I think there's a general apathy to smartphones now. They're not really getting any smarter from a usefulness or time/effort saving perspective. If anything they are wasting time with the amount of features being added.
Whilst I'm sure that we'll see phones heading towards slower growth as the market matures, I fail to see how "Samsung's sales aren't great either" - I mean, they're only the number one phone and smartphone company...
And note the article talks in terms of market share too, not just absolute numbers.
--
Posted Thursday 18th July 2013 16:02 GMT
obnoxiousGit
If it turns out that they really did electrocute that poor Chinese lass, then they can expect their remaning sales volumes to plummet in the very near future.
--
Seriously ? You even didn't get that was an absolutely fake news ?
Of course an ugly looking girl couldn't have been electrocuted... right ? Please..
Verizon isn't a global network mate. I think if you google sales results per quarter for iphones via country you will see their strongest performance is in Americas, but weaker in Europe, Japan, APAC regions, hence the lower figures on a global rate vs the other manufacturers.
And every single year the quarter before a new model gets released obviously there is a drop in number of units sold.
Now, the press trying to spin things up telling that Apple would be losing market to Google while still selling 150million iPhone over 134million the previous year... that is just kinda silly.
Also, the iPhone 5s is going to sell in the 40-50million range during first quarter.. Apple will have sold 100million units in less than 6 months.
It is not difficult to distinguish between relative share and absolute units sold.
Try to keep up!
iFonnery seems to be stuck at 20% of the total market. So it shall be.
I was going to post the same thing. Most companies in most industries would be ecstatic with a >10% growth in sales, it only looks bad because they were doing 100% a couple years ago.
As for "being stuck at 20%", they're actually stuck at a bit under 10% - that's their share of the OVERALL mobile market. The "smartphone market" has no meaning since in a few years all phones will be smartphones. The thing is, almost all the additional growth in the "smartphone market" will be low end devices.
The high end has been saturated by iPhone, Galaxy S and the like, along with a pittance of Windows and RIM devices. There is little growth to be had in that high end, not just for Apple, but for Android as well. Android's market share will continue to grow, but it'll all be the low end devices that are replacing feature phones all over the world. Idiot analysts will say Apple is doomed as their "smartphone market share" falls from 20% to 10%, not realizing that they are still seeing a single digit amount of growth in overall sales each year, and still making huge wads of cash.
True, though they are simply being bitten by the thing that promoted them for years - the ill-defined category of "smartphone" has also meant that for years, 100% of Apple sales have been compared to a fraction of Samsung and Nokia's.
Also note that Apple sales do include lower end phones - as when a new model comes out, the older generations are still on sale for years.
The whole flop versus "runaway success" is annoying anyway. Apple get praised for coming 3rd with 10% of the market after 6 years, and selling 1 million in 76 days. Other companies are regarded as a "flop" or "failure" because they didn't become number one in 6 months, or sold 100 million in 6 months.
I'm not entirely sure Apple cares about their market share nearly as much as everyone else seems to.
I'm pretty much entirely sure that they don't care about their overall market share when you include feature phones and "actual" phones.
What Apple, I suspect, do care about is money. Are they making more money than they were before (selling more units and recouping dev costs etc), and do they think that that trend will continue.
I suspect that industry analysts, tech reporters, and commentards (not excluding or excusing myself here) care more than they do.
And I'm pretty sure that most people don't care about their profit as much as Apple do.
That's the point. Why should we care about that? People care about other things - the products, the popularity. Never in the most heated Linux vs Windows argument did someone go "But look how much money Bill makes!"
It seems entirely reasonable that analysts, journalists and commentards write about what people in general care about, not what Apple care about.
For years after 2007, Nokia Symbian was number one, the sales were increasing, and in fact increasing faster than Apple's (even though that's comparing just some of Nokia's phones too all of Apple's phones). Even just one single model of large number of Nokia smartphones is still the best selling model of smartphone - the 2009 released 5230. But what did we hear from the media? Years of "Nokia are doomed, they are plummetting, Apple are leading" all based on the fact that Nokia's *market share* was falling, and Apple's was increasing.
So you know what? It's payback time. Now that Apple's share falls whilst other platforms increase, this is what's going to happen.
(And 150 million phones a year? Sorry, still less than Nokia and Samsung.)
Ummm, the Macintosh was introduced and sold very quickly, then sold very slowly. Tommy Cooper died live on stage. The GCSEs were introduced. If just 1,900 voters had felt differently, Reagan would have been the first candidate to carry every single US state (though Nixon's reelection was more successful if you discount the electoral college). Frankie Goes to Hollywood were massive. Jet Set Willy was released.
"So 'essentially flat' means up 12%?"
Exactly, I am going to ask my boss for 12% and see if I can spin that as "flat"
Really, the journalist/analyst who wrote this tripe should ashamed, and the editor that allowed it be fired.
the anti-Apple spin from people who intend to profit by talking the shares down knows no apparent end.
with Apple's margins I'd be well made up.
Okay, this is the tech industry so growth rates not in three figures are considered disappointing. I think iSuppli has been reasonably reliable in the past though I think market saturation is probably more of a pressure than the competition. Once the novelty has worn off of having a good smartphone so does the desire to get another. Android devices like the SII and later Nexus' are more than enough for most people.
Basic smartphones are now lowering in price and pushing out feature phones, so the size of the smartphone market is increasing while that of the feature phone market shrinks. That doesn't mean that the value of the market has changed much, just that it's being counted differently. The numbers that Apple, Samsung, HTC et al. are *really* going to care about is how much profit was made; and the overwhelming majority of that profit comes from the high-end devices. The 'trouble' is that a 2-year-old high-end smartphone is absolutely fine, so people are sitting out their 2 year contracts rather than upgrading early, so while the addressable market is growing, the frequency of repeat business is tailing off; published sales of the Galaxy S4 look like it is going to sell a-bit-but-not-much more than the S3 did (10-15%?), but the marketing push has front-loaded that (i.e. more sales immediately post-launch but a quicker fall-off).
So, breaking news: after 5 years of crazy growth, the market is maturing. With the most profitable part of the market saturated, lower-margin markets must be tapped to continue profit growth. The trickiest thing is to avoid cannibalising too much of your high-end, high-margin market by introducing a new cheaper - sorry, more affordable - product but Apple have form on managing this fairly well and I've heard just one or two isolated rumours about a cheaper iPhone...
My company, a relatively big one in its space, rewards people with iPhone 4s on fully paid tarifs (what's the plural of 4s anyway). It's not working anymore. Not working in the sence that people go meh.
Maybe, as some have suggested, it's because smart phones are old hat. However, i think it's also an iPhone issue. Sure, they're not 5, but you'd expect a modicum of excitedness.
So, will Apple deploy the low cost "plastic" iPhone in the US and EU, or just in developing countries that may (or perhaps may not) agree to their carrier deals? The three biggest cell providers in Russia won't be among those deploying any iPhone, much less low cost iPhone, and China Mobile continues to be resistant to Apple's attempts to get them on board. Carriers are going to start resisting Apple's contract negotiating tactics more and more, so they will have to rethink their strategy going forward. Apple no longer has the clout to demand what they want and get it, as demand for the iPhone has apparently stalled.
The real problem seems to be the workings of the US stock market.
Hyped by "analysts", shares of "technology" companies often seem to be priced based on the current rate of growth, even though it can be seen that the growth is not sustainable (short of having a wormhole suddenly open up to a planet with a huge population stuck in the technology level of the 1960s on Earth).
Even though a sane person with a few population statistics and sales graphs can easily work out roughly when a growth curve has to start to bend because of market saturation and the arrival of competition, companies like Apple get valued at amounts of money based on the assumption of infinite market capacity.
When the inevitable happens and it is obvious that the valuation was wildly inflated, the "market" marks down the company and generates reports which announce with great excitement that the Pope has Catholic leanings. And people get paid for it.
This short sightedness seems to be commonplace. All these supposedly brilliant intellects in the hedge funds didn't seem to notice that hedge funds can only work if the amount of capital employed in them is a small fraction of the total market - because otherwise you are in effect trying to ensure the entire market against itself, like Lloyds trying to underwrite the entire economy against a depression. As they controlled more and more capital, their ability to hedge was increasingly restricted.
In the same way a technology company can only continue to record rapid growth while it does not dominate the industry - because the expansion capability of any industry taken as a whole is limited.