Asymco yesterday published a pair of charts providing an interesting perspective on mobile phone company performance for the first quarter of 2011, comparing units sold against profitability.
In the first view, the eight largest mobile phone brands are depicted according to share of units sold during the quarter, with Apple (shown in dark orange) checking in at about 7% share among those top vendors. Apple is joined by Research in Motion and HTC in a category of "smartphone-only" vendors that were responsible for 16% of the overall units shipped during the quarter by the top vendors.
But in looking at the profitability of those top eight vendors, a very different view emerges with Apple accounting for about 57% of total profits and Research in Motion and HTC pitching in to give the smartphone-only vendors over 75% of the total profits among the top vendors. In addition, three of the five "diversified" vendors (LG, Motorola, and Sony Ericsson) drop out of the picture entirely in the new view as they were each unable to turn a profit on their mobile phone businesses during the quarter.
Asymco's Horace Dediu argues that the trend of smartphone vendors dominating industry profits will force the "diversified" vendors to refocus on smartphones, further driving the shift away from so-called "dumb phones" and leaving that market to lower-tier vendors.
I've suggested before that I don't see non-smart devices being interesting to vendors in the near term. Each additional dumb phone added to a portfolio will decrease a company's operating margin. The market dynamics are such that I think non-smart phones will disappear entirely from branded portfolios in 3 to 5 years.
Apple's profit share of around 57% for the quarter is up from 50% in Asymco's study for the fourth quarter of 2010 and continues a trend that has seen the company grab an increasingly large portion of industry profits over the past several years.
The iPhone 15 Pro Max will have the thinnest bezels of any smartphone, beating the record currently held by the Xiaomi 13. That's according to the leaker known as "Ice Universe," who has divulged accurate information about Apple's plans in the past.
Both iPhone 15 Pro models are expected to have thinner, curved bezels compared to the iPhone 14 Pro, potentially resulting in an Apple...
While year-over-year iPhone upgrades are not always groundbreaking, new features can begin to stack up over multiple generations. For example, the iPhone 15 Pro will be a notable upgrade for those who still have a three-year-old iPhone 12 Pro.
If you are still using an iPhone 12 Pro and are considering upgrading to the iPhone 15 Pro when it launches later this year, we have put together a...
While the iPhone 15 lineup is around six months away, there have already been plenty of rumors about the devices. Many new features and changes are expected for the iPhone 15 Pro models in particular, including a titanium frame and more.
Below, we have recapped 11 features rumored for iPhone 15 Pro models that are not expected to be available on the standard iPhone 15 and iPhone 15 Plus:A17...
Apple's high-end iPhone models have started at $999 in the U.S. since they first launched back in 2017 with the iPhone X, but could this finally be the year that starting price sees an increase?
This week also saw some more rumors about Apple's upcoming headset and the company's explorations in the booming AI industry as well as the release of a new round of beta updates, so read on for all...
Apple's next-generation iPhone 15 Pro and iPhone 15 Pro Max will likely be more expensive than previous Pro models, according to Jeff Pu, a tech analyst at Hong Kong-based investment firm Haitong International Securities.
In a research note this week, Pu predicted the iPhone 15 Pro models will see a price increase due to several rumored hardware upgrades, including a titanium frame,...
A first-generation iPhone still sealed inside its box sold for $54,904 at auction, which is more than $54,000 over the original $599 price tag of the device when it was released in 2007.
The original iPhone was put up for sale by RR Auction on behalf of a former Apple employee who purchased it back when it first came out. Back in February, an original, sealed iPhone sold for over $63,000,...
Top Rated Comments
Outstanding post. If more Mac forum posters were like this, they wouldn't have the reputation that they do now.
Here's my chart on how many use a pie chart to show this kind of data and how many use an unnecessary, weird set of boxes...
I have been a computer geek since 1979 - from the time of my 1st TRS-80 Model 1 (4k), through the Pets, Vic-20's, C64s, Atari 800s, Amigas, ST's, PC's, and after several false starts (I had a Mac SE, Mac Classic and later a Color Classic back in the day) my first modern Mac in 2006 (a mini). Today, I am on a Mac 90% of my day, be it my Mini (my second one, the 1st with Nvidia graphics), my iMac (G5 20" isight), a Hackintoish or my Macbook 13". I still use a PC that I built for work related stuff, but I am a 90% Mac user. I hold a bachelors degree in "computer science" which quite honestly is about worthless since few are programming COBOL using punchcards today.
I enjoy the Mac. But the reason I enjoy it is OS X. I don't find anything "magical" about the hardware. It's generally a generation behind any current PC hardware out there and priced 30% more. You can buy the same hardware for a PC that is cheaper - my Hackintoish closely matches a new Mac Pro yet cost $900 less than the cheapest MacPro.
Over the years I've graduated to the iPhone (I've had all 4 models), an iPod Touch (I bought my wife one and after she realized how simple it was to use, I was able to add her to my AT&T plan and get her a 3GS), and an iPad. I've also added my son to my iPhone plan (who graduated from Penn State LAST YEAR and really needs his own plan :) ) .. My parents have my 1st Mini still going strong today!
I spend a lot of time trying to convert PC users over to Macs (Not easy because of the Price) and HAVE converted my oldest son (an Union Craftworker), my niece, and my Daughter (who graduated this year from Kennesaw University THIS YEAR). My younger son (who I mentioned earlier) has a Macbook, but uses a PC as his primary machine since he is a gamer.
I think my passion and experience towards technology makes me worthly of engaging in serious conversation and debate regarding computing, technology, and the digital lifestyle.
Yet I never can seem to carry on an intelligent conversation on ANY Mac forum - Why???? Because they are infested with people like you LTD, fanatics who instead of addressing any comment critical of Apple goes off an a mindless, flaming, fanboy rant. Examples:
* Hey, you must be a troll or on Ballmer's payroll!
* Go play with your Clunky PC with it's Crappy Windows
* Compared to your crappy PC, Macs are just Delicious
* I can't help it you're poor and can't afford a Mac.
This along with using the word "elegant" in ever sentence and quoting "Steve" (I skate to where the puck is going to be), and my very favorite from MDN (Nutcase Central) "What's everyone going to buy "Steve" for his birthday this year"????
No LTD, Mac's aren't "magical, elegant, delicious, sexy, nor do they have "the sex". All Windows computers are NOT "crappy, clunky, or junky". And because you use a Mac, it doesn't make you any better, smarter, or "cooler" than the "Windows Sufferers". If you want to be taken seriously outside the fanboy community, learn why you think a Mac is a better platform (not, Oh God, it's just so delicious and elegant)...
Now, I apologize for the long, off topic post - but I hope I answered your question.
No, Apple is ripping off it's CARRIER partners by demanding outrageous fees and terms, while simultaneously creating a product with unprecedented demand forcing the carriers to bow to them and their control and vision. Consumers win. Apple wins. Carriers, kicking and screaming, win too.
No corporation ever "passes on savings" unless it gives that company a competitive advantage. Companies don't exist as a service to you. They exist for one reason and one reason only: make money for shareholders.