500,000 New Androids a Day!!

[neiltc13]

Desktop market share
Browser market share
Mobile market share
Share value

The entire company has been in decline under Ballmer. They're still making money, but from all the wrong things. And they'll be in for quite a surprise as a result. Making a lot of money is one thing, but where is that money coming from? That's the question.

MS can decide to invest in horse manure and make billions off it, but does that put an amazing tablet in your hands? Does that credit MS with revolutionizing the mobile industry in June 2007? Does that mean they're releasing the next big thing in consumer tech? Does it mean they've got the best mobile OS in the entire market? Does it make them relevant in all the markets that matter?

Is what MS is doing putting great things in your hands and pocket and not years after someone else already did it better? NO. That's for others to do, the ones who aren't absolutely befuddled from their laziness. And if it ever happens that you do get a me-too device from them that's worth having, it happens way too late. That's the point. MS is no longer a first mover, and when they do move they come up with something that was already eaten up and spat out by the competition years ago.

But they make a ton of money from Windows on PeeCee boxes and cheap little laptops. Still. Congratulations. How has it helped them? Where's all the money going? Coffee runs? New chairs?

After a decade, MS *still* only knows these three things:

1) How to create waste and redundancy
2) Windows on PeeCees
3) Office retreads

This stuff doesn't and won't cut it in today's market reality. MS needs to change, and change radically, and do it 4 years ago.

This is why many have been calling for Ballmer to GTFO. He should have been canned years ago. But hey, that Windows-licensing cash cow still makes money. So why take any risks?

I've come to the conclusion that you must be a Microsoft shareholder. No one else would care so much about a company and its CEO to visit an unrelated forum and post messages constantly bashing him. If you care so much, go to the next shareholder meeting and make your feelings heard!

 

[*LTD*]

I've come to the conclusion that you must be a Microsoft shareholder. No one else would care so much about a company and its CEO to visit an unrelated forum and post messages constantly bashing him. If you care so much, go to the next shareholder meeting and make your feelings heard!

Someone asked, I answered.

 

[Foghorn67]

The number of Windows 7 licenses sold is impressive by anyone's measure. Funny how you left off Enterprise solutions. Or entertainment. I guess it's not doomsday enough for you.
BTW, Google's Asia strategy hasn't even left the building yet. Their dominance in Europe isn't something to look over. Yet you did.
Stop your bellyaching.
I love my iPhone and all, but company loyalty involves pledges if blind faith.

 

[*LTD*]

The number of Windows 7 licenses sold is impressive by anyone's measure. Funny how you left off Enterprise solutions. Or entertainment. I guess it's not doomsday enough for you.
BTW, Google's Asia strategy hasn't even left the building yet. Their dominance in Europe isn't something to look over. Yet you did.
Stop your bellyaching.
I love my iPhone and all, but company loyalty involves pledges if blind faith.

Enterprise "solutions" doesn't put tech in my hands. It's got nothing to do with the consumer market (and it certainly isn't helping them.) Sorry, I don't usually get excited about Sharepoint or whatever. If MS can't cut it in the consumer sector they should simply pull out and focus on what they seem to know: Enterprise Frustrations . . err . . "solutions."

By the way, there is plenty of room for a much better Enterprise solution than MS. The IT industry might object, however.

Their "entertainment" division is a gaming console. And?

Google's strategy is to universally license and flood the market. It's the MS strategy. Except Google got to it first. Yeah, it's something to look over because we know exactly where the universal-licesning road leads. As far as cloud services go, that's something else entirely, and frankly, if Apple has something that works and is comprehensive (by the looks of it iCloud will be a winner) there's no reason to look outside the Apple ecosystem for a non-tailolred experience. Why bother?

Company loyalty is brand loyalty. It's hard-won and not easy to achieve. Apple's earned it, and they keep doing it. It's just that simple.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Would that be new phones being activated? Or including reactivating 2nd hand phones? Never quite understood this.

first activation only. If I sold the phone to someone else and they activated it again it would not be counted by Google. I think they IMEI number is what is used. If I had to guess it would be threw google marketplace is how they are doing the counting. Easy place to get a single device count.

Here is a chart from another article.

http://static.intomobile.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/apple-profit-share.jpg

It really does not look like iOS has any worries right now.

personally I do not read much from the charts. Tells me that Apple sells really well, Apple only plays in the high end market and Apple sure as hell is not passing on the savings to its customers but instead lining their own pockets.

Something I would like to know is how much profit do the phone manufactures makes from their high end phones. Remember Apple only makes the high end phones which means good amount of profit and that is were the high margens are.
HTC and others make both low end and high end. The low end you might be looking at a few bucks of profit compared to a lot of profit on the high end.

Add to it Apple specs on on the phone are generally pretty out dated by 3-4 months after release so they can still be cranking out profits while the others have moved on to something new and have reduce their profit margin.

Apple does not pass the savings on.

 

[*LTD*]

Apple does not pass the savings on.

Pass what savings on, exactly, and how? What savings are you looking for?

Consumers don't seem to object, in any case.

Who isn't "lining their pockets"? And what does it matter whether anyone passes any savings at all to the customer? Clearly, market success in this area has little to do with it.

 

[maflynn]

Pass what savings on, exactly, and how? What savings are you looking for?

Consumers don't seem to object, in any case.

Who isn't "lining their pockets"? And what does it matter whether anyone passes any savings at all to the customer? Clearly, market success in this are has little to do with it.

While you're doing some logical gymnastics trying to justify the fact that apple being so profitable means they're charging way more then others and how that it is good. Keep one thing mind, that more people are opting for android handsets, perhaps in part because of the apple-tax.

 

[*LTD*]

While you're doing some logical gymnastics trying to justify the fact that apple being so profitable means they're charging way more then others and how that it is good.

Put out a better product and charge more for it. There is nothing wrong with this.

It's the reason Macs sell like crazy even in a recession, for example, while the competition posts losses and/or slashes prices like crazy. Consumers seem to be willing to pay more for a better value proposition.

More people are opting for Android handsets (although Apple's single handset outsells each Android handset) because they're cheaper? Fine. let's say they are. This has no relationship to quality. It's just cheap stuff that's selling because it's cheap and plentiful. So what.

Of course there's a market for the cheap stuff. It doesn't mean that Apple has to play in it, nor does it reflect negatively on them that they choose not too.

 

[neiltc13]

Put out a better product and charge more for it. There is nothing wrong with this.

It's the reason Macs sell like crazy even in a recession, for example, while the competition posts losses and/or slashes prices like crazy. Consumers seem to be willing to pay more for a better value proposition.

More people are opting for Android handsets (although Apple's single handset outsells each Android handset) because they're cheaper? Fine. let's say they are. This has no relationship to quality. It's just cheap stuff that's selling because it's cheap and plentiful. So what.

Of course there's a market for the cheap stuff. It doesn't mean that Apple has to play in it, nor does it reflect negatively on them that they choose not too.

I think you are missing the point. The reality is that I can go out right now and buy an Android handset for £100 that can perform all of the critical functions I want from my smartphone:

Make calls
SMS with QWERTY keyboard
ActiveSync email
Google Reader
Web browser
Twitter
Facebook

Or, I could give Apple £510 and get the same functions at higher resolution and in a bit of a flashier case, perhaps with a little better performance as well.

You might see the first option as "cheap stuff", but to many people it's impossible to justify the other option.

 

[*LTD*]

I think you are missing the point. The reality is that I can go out right now and buy an Android handset for £100 that can perform all of the critical functions I want from my smartphone:

Make calls
SMS with QWERTY keyboard
ActiveSync email
Google Reader
Web browser
Twitter
Facebook

But it's still no iPhone.

iOS is iOS. That's the reality of playing in the same market as Apple.

This is the reason Apple's two year old phone still outsells Android handsets. How embarrassing for the competition. And how revealing about the things that actually matter. Hint: it aint big share numbers.

It's not just about specs and functionality. This is the mistake the competition is making, and it's most stark and observable in the tablet space (where there are no carriers or contracts.)

The debate is no longer about displays, memory, wireless options. It's about the quality of the experience.

This is why the only way for Google to compete is to flood the market with all manner of flotsam and jetsam with Android shoved into it. They get the market share prize. But these days, it's a rather unenviable prize without the profits or mindshare (the kind Apple enjoys) to go with it.

 

[benthewraith]

Put out a better product and charge more for it. There is nothing wrong with this.

Spec a Mac Pro and Dell identically. The Mac Pro will be far overpriced, have the same if not ******** hard drives, overinflated rebranded RAM and CPU. Even worse, Apple continues to ship 5400rpm hard drives, despite 7200rpm hard drives default on most Dell laptops and computers. I love Apple, but criticism that is deserved, is deserved.

This won't hurt Apple short-term, but it will hurt them long-term and act as a barrier to capturing more of the PC market. I'm lucky I get student discounts that eat up a sizable portion of the apple-tax. Not everyone is as lucky.

 

[*LTD*]

This won't hurt Apple short-term, but it will hurt them long-term and act as a barrier to capturing more of the PC market.

We heard this like 6 years ago. It still hasn't happened. Apple has the only viable long-term strategy: focus on the User Experience, damn everything else.

Apple has already captured the PC market: the only segment that's worth having. The rest is fluff. And the result: everyone's trying to release look-alikes and competitors to Apple's lineup. It's almost comical to see what they come up with.

Further, and even more importantly, Dells don't run OS X.

I repeat:

The debate is no longer about (and has not been about, when it comes to Macs) displays, memory, wireless options. It's about the quality of the experience.

This is why Macs sell in record numbers, even in recessions. And this is why the PC market is in decline. Except for Apple.

And look for the iPad to render a lot of this PC debate meaningless over the next 1-2 years.

 

[benthewraith]

The debate is no longer about (and has not been about, when it comes to Macs) displays, memory, wireless options. It's about the quality of the experience.]

I'd say that good experience requires good quality. Is Apple successful in the mobile OS market, yes. Apple has done a lot of things I commend them for. Innovation and business-wise. However, using the same parts, charging grossly more than their competitors, isn't going to make the "Mac" a serious competitor for gamers, enterprises and consumers.

The reason Apple has done so well with the iPhone is because it got to the market first, got name recognition, and it's iPod integration. Even more so, they did this by working with carriers to set up subsidizing, making the prices reasonable for consumers.

And Apple hasn't captured the PC market as you so claim.

 

[*LTD*]

I'd say that good experience requires good quality. Is Apple successful in the mobile OS market, yes. Apple has done a lot of things I commend them for. Innovation and business-wise. However, using the same parts, charging grossly more than their competitors, isn't going to make the "Mac" a serious competitor for gamers, enterprises and consumers.

The reason Apple has done so well with the iPhone is because it got to the market first, got name recognition, and it's iPod integration. Even more so, they did this by working with carriers to set up subsidizing, making the prices reasonable for consumers.

And Apple hasn't captured the PC market as you so claim.

Image

Of course they haven't. They have, however, captured the only segment worth having. The segment that makes your brand. The one that also-rans would kill for.

Apple's penalty for "losing" the PC war in the 1990s is that they're now the most profitable PC maker in the world. Mac sales growth has outpaced the industry for over 20 consecutive quarters. Apple owns the $1000+ category.

Apple doesn't ship junk. Please don't compare a $400 Acer or Dell to Apple gear.

LOL

 

[RWinOR]

I think you are missing the point. The reality is that I can go out right now and buy an Android handset for £100 that can perform all of the critical functions I want from my smartphone:

Make calls
SMS with QWERTY keyboard
ActiveSync email
Google Reader
Web browser
Twitter
Facebook

Or, I could give Apple £510 and get the same functions at higher resolution and in a bit of a flashier case, perhaps with a little better performance as well.

You might see the first option as "cheap stuff", but to many people it's impossible to justify the other option.

I understand what you are saying here, but the truth is enough people disagree. That is why the £510 iPhone is making more money for Apple then the £100 Android. They only need to sell 1/5 as many to be more profitable, assuming similar margins. Considering they are less then 1/5 the market according to the numbers posted in here, and blowing away the profit margins like 10X the next Android competitor, I would say they are doing something right.

All kidding aside, if you were an investor or owner which company would you rather own? The one making less product but blowing the competition away with profits, or the one making high volumes and low profits. I do not know about you but making less product for more money lights my engines, working harder for less money is just dumb.

Apple is the most profitable smart phone maker in the world right now. If any Android could do that, they would be happy as well. The real problem is the Android phones are basically competing against themselves. So when the low end hardware makers are in the arena it is harder for the high end guys to justify their price. Apple on the other hand is in a class of their own. Their competition is the Android market as a whole, that includes all the really great hardware and all the second class hardware. The average consumer has a hard time knowing the difference. If they even know what OS they are getting Android is Android to them.

 

[flipster]

500,000 pieces of crap are activated each day. congrats google!

 

[roadbloc]

Put out a better product and charge more for it. There is nothing wrong with this.

I'd agree, but there is nothing better about the iPhone than, say, a high end Android phone which is >£200 cheaper.

You go on about iOS being the best and blah blah blah blah, but these average customers that you go on about so much could care less about iOS. They want a phone which does Facebook, occasional Google search, calling, texting and Angry Birds. My father's phone was well under half the price of my iPhone and can do all that with no problems.

So why should average customers pay more? For iOS? I don't think so. Whereas for a lot of people, a decent computer is worth spending some extra £ on. However, in the phone world, a phone is seen as a phone.

 

[Tiggs]

Why not, it worked so well for Microsoft. 90% marketshare, profits through the roof. Why not emulate a process that worked so well.

Except apparently Google left out the part about making profits from it. In the Google conference call, they repeatedly danced around the question of revenues/earnings per device. Activations is the only number they like to tout.

 

[benzslrpee]

i can assure you that if given a chance, Android handset makers would like to be able to hit 20%-30% margins and create a strong branding as well.

in fact, take a look at who HTC hired in for their CFO at the end of 2010, a McKinsey alumni, who also just happens to be in charge of their business analysis group as well. not sure how it is in Asia but stateside, if a senior/partner level M/B/B guy jumps straight into a exec management position at a prominent company it usually means 2 things:

- a restructure or realignment of strategy is in the works
- the respective consulting firm just been hired

a lot of times it can be both.

While you're doing some logical gymnastics trying to justify the fact that apple being so profitable means they're charging way more then others and how that it is good. Keep one thing mind, that more people are opting for android handsets, perhaps in part because of the apple-tax.

 

[kdarling]

i can assure you that if given a chance, Android handset makers would like to be able to hit 20%-30% margins and create a strong branding as well.

As far as smartphones go, I think some are already doing that.

HTC has created a strong branding and has had profit margins in the 28-30% range for the past few years. (It's dropped a bit because of making more mid and entry level phones.)

Samsung makes far more low end dumbphones than most manufacturers, and thus their handset division only hits an average 10% profit margin, but even that's up from where it used to be. Their Galaxy II series is hot news.

LG was the major Android maker having trouble making profits, partly because they didn't keep up with new models. They seem to be trying to fix that by jumping on LTE.

 

[KingCrimson]

Apple captures 50% of mobile industry profits. 'nuff said.

 

[ChazUK]

Apple captures 50% of mobile industry profits. 'nuff said.

The consumer in me simply doesn't care. 'nuff said.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Apple captures 50% of mobile industry profits. 'nuff said.

translation. Apple is ripping off consumerism.

 

[KingCrimson]

translation. Apple is ripping off consumerism.

Translation - Apple is riffing off consumerism. Make a nice product, put in it a VERY shiny package with bow on top and Americans eat it up. Don't hate the playa - hate the game!

 

[decafjava]

I don't think the argument that Apple products are more expensive (ripping off consumers/creating a premium user experience take your pick) is always true.

When I picked up my iPhone 4 in January I paid roughly 99 CHF for it (about 124 USD, 76 GBP or 87 Euro take your pick). I had picked the 32 GB version, if I had gone for the 16 GB IP4 I would have pad 1 measly Swiss franc like every other phone I've gotten with my carrier (Sunrise).

Similarly I've seen the new Samsung Galaxy S2 on offer for 99 francs at Swisscom (16 GB though) so it is the only other smartphone with a similar price to the 32GB iphone. Otherwise the 16 GB ip4 is exactly the same, only a question of choosing the carrier and plan.