Idiot tax is quite a premium these days.
Apple rakes in more profits from its iPhones than all Android phones combined, despite the fact that Android phones command an 81 per cent market share to Cupertino's 12.1 per cent. Earlier this week, IDC reported that Android was used in four out of five smartphones shipped during the third quarter of this year, with Apple, …
Idiot tax is quite a premium these days.
Meh, they've got a business model that works for them … for now.
Let them have their time in the sun. The sun will set soon enough.
The profits spends like any other money, making the scope of possible future courses for the company and the industries it competes in that much broader and deeper. The sun will set on Apple, eventually, but they've got extremely long money at the moment. Don't hold your breath waiting for their last gasp; get on with your life.
Well, count me a happy idiot, then.
I paid full retail price ($649 + tax) for a new iPhone 5S and I don't feel ripped off. The phone has an uber-convenient fingerprint scanner, a top-3 camera, the fastest mobile processor currently available, a beautiful color-calibrated display with almost-full-sRGB gamut, and what amounts to a pedometer (admittedly not essential, but amusing). AND it's one of the thinnest and lightest phones on the market while still getting respectable battery life.
Could I have paid $200 (+ shipping and tax) for a Nexus 4 a few months ago? I can and did. And it's a perfectly functional device. Very impressive. But it's not in the same league as the 5S, not by a long shot. And for the price premium of something mundane like some new tires or a thoroughly average suit, I'm happy to carry around a premium device that I will use every day for the next 3+ years.
Depends on your point of view. Two friends - one has a 4+ year old iPhone 3GS still going strong and he is only now considering replacing it with a 5S - pays about £10 a month (SIM only) for his contract against £25-35 most people are paying for newer Android phones (with the same number of minutes / data etc.).
In 4 years he's paid about £500 for the phone and about another £480 for his contract - so about £980. In comparison the guy (or girl) paying £25-35 a month has been paying £300-420 per year for the same 4 years so their total is £1200-1680. So yes the other person had had 2 phones in that time because they effectively had to - to keep up to date.
Some people do not want to upgrade their phones every 18-24 months!
Something that the Android market place can learn form,
Produce a very expensive phone, the price reflecting its perceived 'exclusivity', then make it nice and shiny.
Of course it need to work as well.
Call it an idiot tax all you want, but the web usage figures are pretty conclusive. People who tend to actually use a smartphone as a smartphone tend to use iOS.
Might be expensive but they command the highest resale values of any phone, I sold a two year old iPhone 4S for £210 granted it was immaculate but no 2 year old android phone would command that kind of price especially as it would have old software.
Like cars,certain models keep great second hand prices, so it makes sense as a useful 'investment' as well.
Agreed. I'm still on a SG2 and can't bring myself to replace what is still a perfectly capable device.
"Something that the Android market place can learn form,
Produce a very expensive phone, the price reflecting its perceived 'exclusivity', then make it nice and shiny.
Of course it need to work as well."
And it does.
"Ignorance is bliss, just keep wasting money when all you need is to make a phone call and browse the internet."
Yes, yes, and the point of a car is to get from point A to point B so there's no reason to buy something fancier than a Hyundai Accent. We get it. You're poor and jealous.
Actually, if it's just getting yourself from A to B, there's no reason to buy anything more fancy than a bicycle. Unless of course you've got a physical disability that prevents you from riding one or A and B are sufficiently far away to make it impractical.
I do exactly this … saves me a bloody fortune on gym fees.
Dude, you are stupid, you know, I can pay 199 per month on net traffic on iphone and 5 on android, if that's what I choose to do, really, that was your friends personal choice and that doesn't make the iphone cheaper... really stupid
I can sell any android for the same price I bought it... if I find the fooll to buy it...
Apple sells pretty much exclusively in the high-end segment - see icon for my opinion of this "analysis".
Sure, Nokia has replacebale battery and even an SD card slot as a disinguishing feature. Well,. i think the moto has the edge on specs, but well, just a personal opinion.
This might be a tough choice still. IF the prices were basicly the same.
I got a hunch were this is going.
No, they're not in the junk business, but they're not in the value for money business either What they are in is the hype led "All the trade will bear" business
If it's just hype, why are the iOS web share figures so high?
Perhaps because those who buy to use the tech, rather than buy to have the tech, tend to choose iPhone?
"Perhaps because those who buy to use the tech, rather than buy to have the tech, tend to choose iPhone?"
Or maybe people that buy iPhones don't have any friends to, you know, phone, so they just browse the web all day?
"If it's just hype, why are the iOS web share figures so high?"
I've come with a semi plausible answer for this:
Because if you choose to buy wisely you can also afford to buy a PC in addition, which you can use to browse at you convenience. At home use PC, on the move phone. Shame I drive to work else else I'd have more opportunity to use my android. Then I'm busy working at work and use company PC. The low paid employees at Starbucks have iPhones and keep playing with them when they are not busy. As I sat there I saw an unemployed single mum on benefits that had a nice new iPhone 5S and new trainers(she was moaning about not being able to afford food as they were cutting her job seekers and her ex wasn't paying child support). It's terrible that people just cannot help themselves these days.
Oh I'm waffling... iPhones keep to a single identity (eg: see marketing figures, they do not distinguish between which version of iPhone). The rest of the market is fragmented into a competitive array of devices which would dilute shares. If you ask me, Apple are great at marketing and making money.
Perhaps because those who buy to use the tech, rather than buy to have the tech, tend to choose iPhone?"
Is the opposite, as long as iphone is regarded as a fashion accessory and as long as you can do exactly the same thing, and even more, on android. Those who buy android just need the technology, not some fancy shiny device.
Got a mac, got a iphone, got a ipad, I do all of that on every device. So in what way are Apple users different that the average Windroid?
It seems that we use the tech, where ever we want and are comfortable with it.
One thing more, if you do afford an utterly expensive iPhone (yes I said it, not overpriced but very expensive), you probably also afford a data plan that covers your web habits on the phone). For me I see no reason to go to the computer for reading a mail or doing some web surfing. Infact I prefer to do those activities under iOS than under OSX.
Maybe the experience of surfing the web and doing email on a android device hasn't matured yet to the state that you guys prefer to do these activities on a android device. I'm not sure.
On the other hand, I also have my own domain for handling my own private email. I guess most droiders use gmail.
Think again, resale value makes the deal. I swapped a 3 GS for a 4, and with a new contract I had to find a difference of £22. 2 years later, and I swapped the 4 for a 5, Carphone Warehouse bought the 4 for a lot of money. Another new contract and my wallet is only £15 lighter. I'll take that, over an android device with out of date software that can't be updated, any day of the week. A top of the line iPhone costs a similar amount to a top of the line Samsung, but resells way better.
Oh, and btw, the £22 and £15 was for new covers as the new phones wouldn't fit in the old ones. A very small price to pay. The iPhones were free with 2 yr contracts.
Company is successful. Company makes profit. Buyers of company's products feel that paying whatever amount of money for company's product was worth it.
Why are we arguing?
"Company is successful. Company makes profit. Buyers of company's products feel that paying whatever amount of money for company's product was worth it.
Why are we arguing?"
So the iTards can praise their overpriced items.. I mean, why would I buy a iPhone if I don't let everybody know about that
No you just come on forums to sanctimoniously tell everybody what a tight arsed, self import wanker you are. I fucking hate fandroids like you. The irony, of course, is that phycologists would call what you are doing projection, for it's exactly what you accuse "iTards" of doing, you smug prick.
The difference is most people want an iPhone / iPad but buy the alternative (Android) because it's similar but cheaper - at the same price (or closer) people would buy the iDevice.
Thing is the iDevices last longer and are worth far more as a result - so people who do pay an initial premium for an iDevice do not typically feel ripped off as the cost of ownership is about the same.
Apple make more profits because a lot of people buy direct from Apple so they do not have to share the profits (as much) with distributors / retailers. They are also selling a premium product that has great support and holds it's value better rather than a race for the bottom with Android / other handsets. So people like Samsung have to spend huge amounts on marketing whereas Apple have built and continue to build a loyal user base.
Indeed, I learned a few years ago that as long as your devices don't get broken or stolen, going Apple is the most cost effective route. It's a little bit heartbreaking to have to sell your perfectly good Android/Windows hardware for pocket change whereas you can sell your used iProducts for half their MSRP when they're years old...
Well, that settles it for me, then. The fact I can just drop a film on my Android 64Gb SD card whenever I want, have glorious widgets updating in real time doesn't really cut it, does it? I think I'll get an iPhone and suffer the mercy of iTunes to get my iContent on it. Then I can easily install XBMC (not). And all because, in a couple of years time I can get a bit of extra cash for it. Sounds worth it to me .... Sod the OS and the phone. It's what you can *do* with it that matters. I don't buy a phone for bragging rights from my mates.
And neither do the vast majority of iPhone buyers, you patronising twat. Sure, there are braggers, but I find it's the sanctimonious asshole fandroids that preach the most.
"I think I'll get an iPhone and suffer the mercy of iTunes to get my iContent on it."
Eh, iTunes does suck but I have to use special software (Android File Transfer) to get content on my Nexus.
It will be interesting how the low/mid end of the android market plays out. With the google backed Moto G, I can't see the other manufacturers being able to compete to make it profitable for them to stay with android.
The Moto G is an interesting proposition. I think it shows that Apple got it's pricing wrong on the 5c, which IMHO is about £200 too much. I agree, this isn't good for the likes of Samsung and HTC.
My rk3188 tablet with 2gb/16gb @2048x1536 is awesome for 175€. Apple is a waste of money.
Well done. Have a gold star. Let us know how it's doing in a couple of months...
It's only a matter of time before AAPL's share is around it's natural 5% level.... and then forced to bring down prices to even hang in there at 5%.
Some people are willing to pay a premium, but few like to feel they are being ripped off.
AAPL's days as mobile supremos are clearly numbered.
The article goes on about Apple profits compared with Android profits.....
I thought Android was a largely free OS which various manufacturers of hardware use, to power their phones and so any profits are mostly split up between the myriad of manufacturers, and the profits cover the hardware, distribution, manufacturing and of course some for the OS supplier.
Is the comparison valid then ? Can someone correct me please ?
No matter what the product, when one is catering to the premium market, the profit margin is always higher. The status factor is worth at least half the profit. In the premium market one is not so much selling materials as opposed to a perception of one's self in relation to others.
There is no doubt that Android is the common man and Apple is the status brand.
To maintain profits in the premium market one has to continue to keep "exclusivity" front and center. Apple has taken its proprietary approach to technology and through the alchemy of marketing turned it into "exclusivity".
The battle has long ceased to be about the technology although that is often what most of the discussion focuses on. The real battle is in the heads of consumers. Android users don't want to feel like second class citizens so they talk about Apple being overpriced while Apple users like to tout the Iphone features and "just works" mantra so they don't admit to themselves that they feel superior to Android users.
There is no shortage of product available to give you that superior feeling. You think women buy Louis Vuitton just so they have a handbag for their makeup ? Guys wear Ferragamo belts to keep their pants up ?
You are absolutely correct. In any product category there are really only two ways to go and neither is 'better' anymore than a pear is better than an apple (ha!). Both have risks and rewards, advantages and disadvantages.
Historically, companies (in all industries) that offer 'competitive' consumer pricing plateau and quickly sink to a level just above drowning and they stay there until they are consumed by the next cut rate provider. Companies that focus on margins instead of volume historically stick around a lot longer as they weather bad economies and changes in fashion much better. Most real luxury brands today are the same companies they were 100+ years ago.
It is a much more feasible exercise to start at the high end then add on low end capacity as you become stabilized. You can offer a 'cheap' version of something and people will buy it (Porsche Boxster) but the opposite is really, really hard to pull off.
All that being said, aiming low-middle has a much lower risk associated with it. The complications are several orders of magnitude larger, but the risks are lower and you can offer a wider variety of products. There are many other factors, but it all boils down to doing what best suits your business. Samsung already has a massive supply and distribution infrastructure for its plethora of non-phone products and adding phones to the mix isn't as big of a deal. Apple doesn't have that kind of infrastructure and it likely would have killed the company to try and create it. Those things have to grow organically to work well.
All in all, it's even and historically that's always been the case. Business doesn't change, just the products.
Actually, I bought this refurb 3Gs because I needed a decent phone but I'm on a budget, and it was cheap enough for me to afford. I never wanted an iPhone, and there's plenty I don't like about it, but I've not regretted the purchase. It's kind of grown on me.
"Surely you, sharp-eyed Reg reader, immediately noticed that those two figures add up to 109 per cent of the smartphone and feature phone value share, and asked, '"How the %$#@! is that possible?'"
That's amazing! That's what I asked! That's EXACTLY what I asked, word for word! Are you *sure* that your name isn't really Rik Kreskin? (I guess you changed your name in order to avoid giving that $50,000 to charity, right?)
"'The latest data from Canaccord Genuity ... estimates that Apple took 56 percent of the operating profits for feature phones and smartphones in the third quarter of calendar 2013,'"
"To be scrupulously fair, it should be mentioned that AppleInsider's Cannacord Genuity source told them that..."
Who'd've thought that there would be TWO companies with such similar names, in the same field? *I* certainly woudn't've....
"Simple. Most of the competition – Nokia, BlackBerry, Motorola, LG, and HTC – lost money during the quarter. The only other phone vendor surveyed who didn't – Sony – simply broke even."
No. Profits are profits. Losses are not profits.
I actually MADE money off my new iPhone 5S purchase.
Cost of new iPhone 5S w/contract: $215 after taxes
Sale of unlocked-by-carrier iPhone 4S: $250
And before you fun me for being locked into a contract, I've been a satisfied Cingular/AT&T customer for the last 9 years (with the same phone number all that time). I have no issues locking myself into another contract with them.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017