Posted on 04/10/2015 4:56:48 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Apple Watch Edition has already sold out in China — and it took less than an hour for the most luxurious gold version of the device, which reportedly costs ¥126,800 ($20,000) to get completely snapped up.
Today, Apple put the Apple Watch Sport, Apple Watch, and Edition up for pre-order in the US, UK, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, and China. Customers can now try on and buy the watches, but the company says people won't get them until weeks later in the UK — elsewhere, it could be longer. Relatively few will actually walk out of shops wearing their new accessory.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
You are denying that Motorola owned the cell phone market in the 80's? You are denying that Nokia owned the mobile phone market from the late 90's until the late 2008 time frame?
I remember reading case studies on Nokia back around the turn of the millenium.
They were a biz school paradigm.
iPhones have not been affected, yet. They are still going through that honeymoon period.
Honeymoon period? Since 2007?
McCourt originated this silly meme, and some other organization ran with it. Heck, during the internet/telecom bubble, some analyst came up with price to sales ratios to justify the insane valuations and the whole brokerage sector adopted it, right until the bubble blew up. Without the underlying source citations, these "profit share" numbers are indistinguishable from fiction. I have found lots of these guesses on the internet but no source numbers (i.e. 10-Q's, 10-K's and so on) to back them up.No, it wasn't and hasn't been. It has been around for a long time. The current figures come from many sources who calculate it independently. BZZZT! They do NOT come from Tavis McCourt but from the Financial reports of the companies involved. Sorry, again you are wrong. They are not "Guesses." I don't know what you think you proved with that long rambling cut and paste, but it said nothing about "profit share." You seem to think it is an arcane calculation or guess. It isn't. Total all the profits of all the companies making cellular phones for any specific period. . . calculate the percentage for each company of that total. Voilá, Profit Share. Some companies LOST money so the percentages can total more than 100%.
You realize that the Mac was introduced in 1984 and Apple was profitable from the Mac's inception until the mid-90's, don't you? The IBM PC was profitable for a decade. Market share steadily fell. Then the bottom fell out of IBM's PC profits, and other divisions increasingly had to subsidize the Personal Systems division until it was sold to Lenovo.
A lot of these case studies involve cherry-picking the facts. Everybody more or less is doing the same thing organizationally. Sometimes, in a given organization, things gel a little better just by chance or because a standout talent (like Steve Jobs) just outshines the rest of the pack. Serendipity or not, many case studies simply shoehorn the "facts" to fit the case.
Except it has been proved that the figures for "Android (Google)" were NOT all smartphones, because they include all Android phones, Zhang Fei. The numbers reported for the makers of Android phones report all the phones they make. . . smart phones, feature phones, and just plain phones.
In 2013, in the Apple v. Samsung trial, Judge Lucy Koh forced Samsung to reveal their Android phone product mix. It turned out Samsung made 30% Android smart phones, 40% Android feature phones, and 30% Android plain phones. Economic researchers have taken that bit of information and researched the other major Android manufacturers and found the mix pretty close was mirrored by all of them because it was forced by market forces—yet their statistics are all merely reported under Android phones—and invariably that gets reported as Android smartphones.
The researchers also found that many of the smaller Android phone makers do not even make smartphones, but concentrate their product lines on the mid range to low-end plain phone market for the third world. In other words, Zhang, most of those "Other" phones made by "White Box Cellphone makers" are not even smartphones, and the Android "smartphone" market is extraordinarily inflated, both in numbers and in percentages. The actual percentage of SMARTPHONES is something less than 30% of that percentage of Android (Google), while the rest of the Android (Google) percentage is made of those Feature and plain phones.
Besides, your chart is total twaddle when it states that in 2010, Android phones had 53.26% of the market and Apple had 39.93% while Windows Mobile had 9.81%. . . WHERE ARE RIM's and NOKIA's 70% PLUS OF THE SMARTPHONE MARKET IN 2010????
Your chart is garbage. You can't just make up "facts" like Blackberry, Symbian are "APP-LESS" when they were not! Android was just getting STARTED in 2010 and yes Android was growing rapidly, but there is NO WAY they had garnered 53% of the market by 2010. . . I don't know where you got this junk but that's what it is. . . junk. Your chart shows Apple taking second place in 2010 excluding RIM and Nokia, but the actual historic record shows that only occurred in August of 2011.
Not making it up. BB and Symbian died because they lacked apps and never made any real attempts to attract developers. Look up any forum.
The raw data comes from Wikipedia. I excluded Symbian, PalmOS and BB because they lacked apps, and their makers never bothered to get developers interested. BB's focus was on data security, and apps by 3rd parties kind of monkey with that. Nokia thought it could do everything - instead of paying developers, it bought Navteq, paid over $10b in dividends and bought back billions of dollars of stock. PalmOS was always on the verge of death - it lost small sums of money year after year after year, and never had significant unit volume. So it came down to Apple, Google and MS. Before Apple and Android, MS was the only smartphone platform with a full suite of 3rd party apps.
Again, BB and Symbian had few appreciable 3rd party apps, and very limited in-house apps, so I don't consider them smartphones, which are functionally full-featured computers in a handset sans the desktop or laptop screen. At best, they were feature phones with a bit of additional functionality.
Oh, BULL PUCKY! You obviously did not ever own a Blackberry or a Nokia phone circa 2007-08! And you claim the Microsoft phone had THIRD-party apps. More BS. All phones of the period had to download their apps from their carriers, but the sheer number of apps for Rim Blackberry and Nokia was quite high for the period. Blackberry had quite a few third party apps, especially for business use that were downloadable. Vlingo, RTM Blackberry app, WSJ mobile app, Gmail, Google Maps, Google Talk, Google Search, Skype, Viigo, MobiPocket Reader, VyMail client for YouMail, and MobileTraffic.tv are all third party BB apps that come to mind, Nokia was pretty in house, but also had independent developers on Symbian, too. You just DON'T want to count them. The Windows Phone of the period was a joke to those who tried to do anything serious with it, yet you count it.
Add the sheer numerical distortion in the chart you posted, where ever you cut and paste it from, demonstrates clearly that even liars can make cherry picked lying statistics. They just won't stand up when an Economist who knows how to read data sees the clear obfuscation going on. You can try pulling the wool over ignorant know nothings, but it won't work with trained, educated people. I'm calling you out on this and your other posts.
You don't get to define "smartphones" to fit your pet theory, especially when your experiential data with those phones you say did not have "appreciable' 3rd party apps, your criterion for these phone's exclusion, seems to have been made up out whole cloth by YOU, based on no first hand evidence. Instead, you choose to bestow your blessings on a platform every contemporaneous user hated, Microsoft Mobile, and declare it a "smartphone", when most users of the product would laugh you out of the room!
Incidentally, your source article at Wikipedia claimed both the BlackBerry and the Nokia N series to be the pre-eminent smartphones of the period prior to the intro of the Apple iPhone. . . . when you in your FOLLY chose to exclude them to obfuscate and advance your pro-Android agenda!
You can buy Unlocked Xiaomi phone right on ebay. I might buy one
Smartphone means-—
That in addition to it being a cellphone. That you can access the internet with it. That the internet sites and your emails will display in a coherent way.
Aside from the above, the camera features coupled with large image display area, plus ability to instantly transmit these photos (and stoopid selfies) have boosted “smart” phone sales
The thing with buying these items from vendors you don’t know anything about, especially foreign ones, is the risk that the phone is hacked and trojaned. Since you have to punch in your user id’s & passwords to get onto various websites, I’d be cautious about getting phones and tablets from anyone other than a stateside vendor, and I’m not referring to Ebay (unless it’s Best Buy or Newegg selling on Ebay).
I noticed that myself and reposted it in Post #28 ... :-) ...
If customs finds them in the mail, they will be seized. They are not cleared for use in the United States by the FCC and they are not licensed for any of the intellectual property they use. Good luck with that. It's a crap shoot. . .
I am impressed with the level of the tech stuff the eBay seller offers other than Xiaomi phones. . .
(Any bets the name brands are or are not knock-offs?)
The importer seems to be really into high-tech, don't they. I am certain they will be a good resource for you when your new Xiaomi phone needs upgrading or service repairs. You can send it back to them and they can give it a facial! ;^)
Other than that, I hear Xiaomi phones are a middle of the road quality Android smartphone, but not much capacity I notice. 1GB of RAM and 8GB of storage. Xiaomi phones aren't getting much traction outside of China because of their serious IP problem—when they started trying selling in India, their product started being seized and they are being sued by multiple owners of the patents they are infringing—and they are officially blocked in many other countries until they get their legal act together.
That isn't the industry definition either. You've succeeded in defining almost every smartphone, feature phone, and even a few models of higher-end dumb phone. Sorry.
YUp! I saw you self-corrected after I posted #66
Are you interested in posting this one? ... :-) ...
Apple Watch set to beat iPhone launch with 1 million-order weekend
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-watch-set-to-beat-iphone-launch-with-1-million-order-weekend-2015-04-13
I remember that one because I got my first iPhone then ... it was crazy ... and they’re saying that the Apple Watch is more of a succes, right at the beginning than the iPhone was!!
From that article ...
— — —
Edward Yruma and the team at KeyBanc Capital Markets say there are signs of a strong start for preorders and Apple is set to sell all of its production volume for the first three months. And with that, the “moment of reckoning” has arrived for the traditional fashion watch market, they said in a note dated Sunday.
“After trying on the Apple Watch, visiting stores and based on our field work, we are now more convinced that the Apple Watch will be disruptive to the fashion watch market. At a minimum, the widespread buzz may cause something of a standstill in the watch market,” said the KeyBanc analysts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.