Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

50% of Apple's Revenue Comes From the iPhone

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the hey-fellas-we-switched-businesses dept.

Businesses 292

BogenDorpher writes "A new report indicates that 50% of Apple's revenue comes from its iPhone product. Not 5%, not 20%, but 50%. In just three months from December 2010 to March 2011, Apple has raked in a total of 24.6 billion dollars. 50% of that came from the iPhone."

cancel ×

292 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wait... (1)

ControversialMatt (1070718) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898112)

Apple has products other than the iPhone?

Re:Wait... (5, Funny)

wikdwarlock (570969) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898128)

They also sell proprietary iPhone cables.

Re:Wait... (0)

drpimp (900837) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898298)

1. Create iPhone
2. Sell proprietary equipment
3. Sell GPS location of your customer base
4. Profit ???

Re:Wait... (3, Insightful)

mbkennel (97636) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898338)

1. Create iPhone
2. Wail on carriers so they don't ruin it
3. Profit!
4. Profit!!
5. Profit!!!
6. Profit!!!!
7. Profit!!!!!

Don't for get the apps (3, Funny)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898430)

Incredibly 80% of their profits come just from apps for middle managers, hairdressers and telephone sanitizers.

Re:Don't for get the apps (2)

The Great Pretender (975978) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898488)

I'm currently writing an App to track giant mutant star goats, so don't panic

Re:Don't for get the apps (2)

lpp (115405) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898792)

As opposed to the naturally occuring giant star goats?

Re:Don't for get the apps (1)

Caerdwyn (829058) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898936)

There's an app for that... the World of Warcraft Remote Armory.

iOS: so usable, a Night Elf hunter can figure it out. *bounce bounce jiggle derp*

What I want to know (2, Insightful)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898142)

What I want to know is how much of that 50% is from hardware sales and what is from app store revenue.

Re:What I want to know (4, Informative)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898186)

Second paragraph:

Keep in mind that these numbers are not simply based on how many iPhones have sold. The 50% number includes "Related Products and Services" such as carrier agreements, services, and accessories. Anything brought from the App Store is classified as iTunes revenue. iPod Touch and the iPad were not calculated as a part of the iPhone revenue.

Re:What I want to know (1)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898326)

Maybe you should read his question.

It wasn't whether App revenue was added but what portion of the 50% was app revenue.

12.3B was iPhone revenue.

Was 50% of that from apps (6.15B)? 25% (3.07B)? 75% (9.25B)?

Re:What I want to know (3, Informative)

gig (78408) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898382)

Apps are iTunes Store, which is a separate $1.4 billion (per quarter) business. Not part of the iPhone revenue.

Re:What I want to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35898486)

Maybe you should read his question.

It wasn't whether App revenue was added but what portion of the 50% was app revenue.

12.3B was iPhone revenue.

Was 50% of that from apps (6.15B)? 25% (3.07B)? 75% (9.25B)?

If the App revenue wasn't added to the iPhone revenue numbers, then 0%of that number was app revenue.

So 0% of app purchases were included in the iPhone revenue, because they were included in the iTunes store revenue. Or, if you prefer, 0 billion dollars.

Seriously, did you flunk out of math because word problems were too hard for you?

Re:What I want to know (4, Funny)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898794)

Don't let anybody ever tell you you ask confusing, non-sequitir questions, Talderas. You just keep shining on, making sense of the world the way you see it, and maybe someday they'll let you use the scissors with the pointy ends.

Re:What I want to know (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898802)

He answered that, dimwit. 0%. App revenue is recognised under iTunes, not iPhone.

Re:What I want to know (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#35899090)

derp

Re:What I want to know (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35898196)

What I want to know is how much of that 50% is from hardware sales and what is from app store revenue.

Then you should RTFA because it clearly points out that App Store sales are classified as iTunes revenue, not iPhone revenue.

Re:What I want to know (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 2 years ago | (#35899096)

Then you should RTFA

You're new here, aren't you?

Re:What I want to know (2)

ePhil_One (634771) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898210)

If you read the article, App store purchases counted as "iTunes" revenue. The big delta here is carrier agreements, which were counted as iPhone revenue.

Re:What I want to know (1)

gig (78408) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898518)

Carrier agreements just means paying for iPhones. They cost $640 on average, but the user pays $240 on average and the carrier pays the rest.

Re:What I want to know (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898942)

In the US this is true, at least as far as we know about Apple and AT&T [arstechnica.com] , but Verizon/Apple have never disclosed their backend deal, and we don't know what happens anywhere else.

Re:What I want to know (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898816)

What I want to know is how much of that 50% is from hardware sales and what is from app store revenue.

Not that much. See here. [businessinsider.com]

-jcr

But how do this compare with (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35898144)

the banana phone?

Re:But how do this compare with (5, Funny)

belthize (990217) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898166)

Radiation concerns have killed the banana phone sales.

Re:But how do this compare with (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35898520)

The banana peel icon doesn't help either, pure garbage. The one eighth eaten apple is just so much better.

Apple stock == huge gamble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35898146)

Now more than ever.

Re:Apple stock == huge gamble (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898212)

I concur, and I've been short since $340. Crude oil and the plunging US dollar will do away with expensive shiny toys.

Re:Apple stock == huge gamble (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898274)

So will the chance to get a decent phone from anyone else who doesn't want to exert draconian control on my phone. 3 years ago the iPhone 3g was pretty much the only smartphone worth having in most of the world. Not so much anymore. Now it's a matter of how locked in people are to their itunes account and apps or if they're willing to abandon ship and re-buy.

Re:Apple stock == huge gamble (1)

mbkennel (97636) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898366)

Something I've learned in investing: overdogs win.

Why not buy oil, short treasuries and dollar?

Re:Apple stock == huge gamble (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898640)

I've been using the iPhone 4 since it came out, and I'm re-prioritizing along these lines.

With inflation being what it is (for everything except salaries and the dollar), I am switching to a dumbphone with a full keyboard for messaging. $30-40 off my monthly phone bill will be nice, flipping the phone for most of what I paid for it will be nicer.

Re:Apple stock == huge gamble (2)

metamatic (202216) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898692)

Even if it doesn't, the iPad is going to face serious competition from the latest Android 3 tablets this summer.

Re:Apple stock == huge gamble (1)

Americano (920576) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898768)

Yes, just look at the huge dent the Galaxy & Xoom tabs have made! It's INCONCEIVABLE that the iPad will continue selling well in the face of this competition!

Re:Apple stock == huge gamble (2, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898820)

Funny, that's what everyone said about the first iPad.

"Any time now!"

"Soon!"

"Just around the corner"

"Ok, well *now* it'll get serious with Honeycomb..."

In the meantime, Apple released the iPad 2.

I've no doubt that there will be strong competitors to the iPad, but the supposed "cheaper, better, faster" Android tablet that was meant to appear months ago still hasn't arrived.

Re:Apple stock == huge gamble (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898842)

If you're short at $340, you're a bit over ten bucks out of the money as of today's close: AAPL 350.7 +8.29

-jcr

Re:Apple stock == huge gamble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35898496)

I've held Apple stock since the early 90s, so, not so much.

Re:Apple stock == huge gamble (2)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898516)

I would disagree. At the rate they're going, they'll have as much cash on hand as their market cap within a few years assuming the stock price doesn't go up. Also, unless the tablet market withers to nothing, they'll continue to have room to grow. Their PC market share also continues to slowly rise, adding even more growth.

They will be solid for the next three years at the very least, even if Steve Jobs were to retire as CEO. Eventually they will reach a point where they need another massively successful product line in order to continue growing, but the smart phone and tablet markets are still incredibly young and it will be many years before they become saturated.

I see a fairly safe bet rather than a gamble. Android isn't hurting Apple's sales much if at all, as Apple is selling all that it can produce. If Android were to vanish from the market overnight, Apple's sales would not likely see a large increase. If there's cause for concern, it might be supply chain disruption due to the disaster in Japan, but with Apple's massive cash reserve, they can easily acquire the parts they need. In a certain sense, the tsunami is probably much worse for Apple's competitors than it is for Apple.

Say What? (0)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898162)

A remarkable bit of sleuthing from a Windows blog. Any evidence for this particular factoid?

Re:Say What? (1)

Relayman (1068986) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898314)

The submitter appears to be the same person who wrote the blog entry...

Re:Say What? (2)

brainzach (2032950) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898400)

Apple is a public company. It is in their financial statements. [corporate-ir.net]

iPhone and related products and services (d) 12,298. Total net sales $24,667. Numbers are in millions

Re:Say What? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898642)

Right. If I wanted to read that gobblydegook I'd subscribe to the Wall Street Journal. How about English? Or at least, an automobile analogy.

Re:Say What? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898678)

But I did forget to thank you for the link. It's in there as you mention. Just in econbabble.

Re:Say What? (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 2 years ago | (#35899004)

Actually, the tables are fairly readable, but they're a bit tedious to find.

Re:Say What? (1)

Americano (920576) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898808)

Asking for this information is like asking what color, make and model my car is when it's parked right there in front of you!

(Does that help?)

Another factoid (3, Interesting)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898164)

Apple is now the largest cellphone manufacturer on Earth by revenue [allthingsd.com] .

Re:Another factoid (1)

gig (78408) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898472)

They have been the largest by profits and by market cap for a long while.

Alone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35898174)

iPhone alone, or from iPhone apps and accessories as well?

Ballmer was right again (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35898184)

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2007/04/ballmer-says-iphone-has-no-chance-to-gain-significant-market-share.ars

Re:Ballmer was right again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35898302)

Revenue != marketshare.

Re:Ballmer was right again (1)

Caerdwyn (829058) | more than 2 years ago | (#35899092)

I'd rather have 10% of a market with a 50% profit margin than 50% of a market with a 5% profit margin. And so, apparently, would Apple. Mind you, 90% of a market with 50% profit margin is even better... owaitiPad.

Steve Ballmer = Fail at math + fail at marketing + fail at research + fail at DEVELOPERS! YEAH!!!! + balding sales hack with armpit sweatstains. The sooner MSFT gets rid of him, the sooner they can try to actually participate in the mobile revolution.

Re:Ballmer was right again (1)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898368)

He was right based on the state of things at that time. That prediction was based on the ridiculously high price of the iPhone, before they lowered it a few hundred dollars.

Re:Ballmer was right again (1)

LoganDzwon (1170459) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898694)

Actually, they raised the price. They just lowered the upfront expenditure. Original price on the first iPhone, (top model,) was $599. The current top model iPhone4 is $699. AT&T subsidizes the device down to $299 then charges you higher rates to make up for it. (extra money for SMS, extra money for data, etc...)

Re:Ballmer was right again (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898822)

That prediction was based on the ridiculously high price of the iPhone, before they lowered it a few hundred dollars.

Which is exactly the same argument being made today regarding iPhone's competitiveness versus Android. I'm not sure why people assume Apple will never compete on price like they did to win the iPod market. A pre-paid iPhone nano (hopefully not an iPhone Shuffle! :) ) is an inevitability someday.

Re:Ballmer was right again (1)

ClaraBow (212734) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898444)

Wow, reading this article really points out how myopic Ballmer has become. He really can't see anything being successful outside of the MS-Windows world! Microsoft really needs new leadership!

Re:Ballmer was right again (3, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#35899024)

Frankly I've been saying that for awhile now. You think the Apple prediction was bad? How about royally boning the chance to wipe out Windows piracy AND boost your numbers AND being able to have a captive market to upsell AND boosting the latest IE ALL at the same time?

Talking to my fellow builders and repairmen the $50 Windows 7 HP deal was wiping out piracy. Like me they went from seeing the "Razr1911" XP and Vista Ultimate installs to Win 7 HP across the board. They were also getting many of those still sitting on the fence deciding whether to keep XP or not to upgrade. So what does he do? Raises the price to $100 and guess what happened? Now there are Windows 7 Ultimate installs all over the place. Smart Move Ballmer!

I give credit where credit is due and Jobs has made Apple THE hip upscale brand. Jobs keeps the price high because like Porsche and Ferrari it is part of the appeal. The lesser priced iDevices (even though they are still making him something like 40%+ profits) get people started on the brand like Ferrari jackets. Once you get them hooked it is easier to upsell, and I've seen many who went from one iDevice to having a Macbook and several.

That is why I still think that ancient Gates Borg icon needs to be retired, and replaced with Ballmer wearing a beanie that says "I heart Apple!" on it, since that seems to be his business strategy. Anything Apple does the sweaty monkey follows it with a lame half assed copy six months to a year down the line. Kin, Zune, how much $$$ has he blown so far just on the fails? I can just imagine him trying to rev up the troops "And with this newest device we'll be cool as Apple and people will flock to us! Yes they will! They really really will! STOP LAUGHING AT ME!!!".

What they need to do is fire his ass and put one of the office guys in charge. Focus on integration, making things like having home users and SMBs be able to connect their machines no matter where they are as easy as plugging in a USB drive or using Homegroup, bring back Win 7 HP at $50 to wipe out piracy, and quit trying to play falling the bouncing Apple. Leaders win, followers suck. I think it is pretty obvious which of those categories Ballmer falls into.

This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (4, Insightful)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898350)

I know it's kind of laughable right now, but imagine if Windows Phone or Android make a big dent into Apple's iPhone marketshare.

That's 50% of their revenue they are cutting into, at high percentages. Just food for thought folks...

Re:This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (0, Troll)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898418)

What do you mean laughable? If you go by OS and don't include tablets Droid is already trouncing iOS in marketshare.

Re:This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (3, Informative)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898502)

If you go by OS, then iOS is trouncing Android. Because by going by OS, you HAVE to include, iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/04/19/a-look-at-ipad-users-apple-still-trouncing-android/?mod=e2tw [wsj.com]

Re:This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (0)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898544)

Well I did say to exclude tablets but I guess I should have said MP3 players, too. Otherwise you are comparing Apple and Oranges. Is there even such a thing as a droid standalone mp3 player? What would be the point? Tablets obviously Droid is barely even mentionable.

Re:This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898598)

Then don't go by OS. In which case you have to go by device. And there is no Droid or Thunderbolt or flavor-of-the-month-phone that is outselling the iPhone.

Re:This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (1, Informative)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898648)

Why can't I go by OS and platform? Is there some rule that says that isn't allowed? I mean you want comparables you have to look at Smartphones by OS. I mean even Nielsen put their ratings for Smartphones like that. Why would anybody reasonably try to compare Smartphones to MP3 players?

When people compare Windows marketshare to Apple they don't break out Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. and they don't try to group XBox in with Desktops.

Re:This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (4, Insightful)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898814)

Why would anybody reasonably try to compare Smartphones to MP3 players?

People who want to sell apps across an OS.

Re:This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (2)

ktappe (747125) | more than 2 years ago | (#35899012)

Why can't I go by OS and platform? Is there some rule that says that isn't allowed?

Because it greatly dilutes your point if you blatantly cherrypick a dataset to debate. Basically nobody knows or cares who is winning by "OS and platform"....except perhaps fandroids who are desperate to devise any shred of evidence that yesterday's announcement isn't a huge win for Apple.

Re:This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (4, Insightful)

Americano (920576) | more than 2 years ago | (#35899058)

Here's why your argument is disingenuous: When you're comparing platforms, the usual reason for doing so is to compare the robustness of the platforms in terms of where a developer/company should focus its efforts at producing apps. And iOS, as an app platform, is much larger than Android, because you can't simply disregard the fact that many (most?) apps work just fine without phone hardware, and can work either disconnected, or over wifi-only, on iPads and iPod touches. If you develop for iOS, you have access to millions of non-iPhone devices.

So, yes, the aggregate market share of all Android devices is a few % larger than the market share of the single line of phones that Apple produces. So what?

If your goal is to use that number to convince people that Android is a compelling platform to develop for (i.e., enhancing the value & appeal of the platform with third-party applications that will entice users to buy), then you cannot disregard the fact that iOS is much larger than "only iPhones," just as Android is much larger than "only Motorola Droids."

And it's interesting to note, with the arrival of legitimate Android competitors to the iPad, that people flogging Android seem eager to overlook the low market share of these devices while touting Android as a total winner for any shop looking to develop apps for a mobile platform.

Re:This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#35899070)

even Nielsen put their ratings for Smartphones like that.

Neilsen and ever other market research company will arrange their categories according to what will sell most copies of their reports. Logic be damned. National telco networks are the largest buyers of these types of reports, so they're not interested in OS sales in MP3 players or non-cellular tablets.

App developers would be interested in having all iOS devices included. But the information isn't that significant that they spend the big $ these reports cost.

Re:This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (0)

metamatic (202216) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898868)

There's no single model of Windows laptop that's outselling the MacBook. So I guess Windows is a dismal failure in the market, right?

Re:This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#35899068)

Well, there were only 2.9M MacBooks sold last quarter.

That was probably enough to make more, net, than ALL of the Windows laptops combined. In terms of hardware, yes Windows is a failure. See Dell, IBM, Compaq, NEC, etc, etc.

Re:This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898888)

Well I did say to exclude tablets but I guess I should have said MP3 players, too. Otherwise you are comparing Apple and Oranges. Is there even such a thing as a droid standalone mp3 player? What would be the point? Tablets obviously Droid is barely even mentionable.

Why are you referring to the iPod Touch as a "standalone mp3 player"? Is that what you call the Nintendo DS or PSP families of products? It's an app platform. One of the apps is an mp3 player. The iPhone, in fact, is just an iPod Touch that has hardware support for a "phone" app.

If you're trying to make money writing apps, there's no difference. And besides pissing rights, what other reason is there to break apart OS market share?

Re:This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (0)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#35899022)

The point isn't about selling apps. This article isn't even about apps sales. We are talking about Smartphones and whatever you want to call iPods they aren't Smartphones. And I am pretty sure that most people buy an iPod to listen to music. I don't have a statistic but I would guess it's a pretty safe bet.

Re:This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (2)

metamatic (202216) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898744)

Because by going by OS, you HAVE to include, iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad.

No, you don't. Just like you don't HAVE to include HP's printers that run Android, or the MP3 players that run Android, or the e-readers that run Android, or the Sony TVs that run Android.

Re:This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898966)

Well, since the GP was the one that stated going by OS, I was refuting his premise.

Re:This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (4, Insightful)

biglig2 (89374) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898824)

Shocking as it may be to hear an Apple Fanboi say this - good point RazzleFrog! Because, you see, you're right: Android IS trouncing iOS in smartphone marketshare. And Apple don't care!

They're making all the profit. They're selling every iOS device they can build. They're seeing Mac sales go up while PC sales go down because of iPad. They're watching RIM go insane and Nokia sell out to Microsoft. They're welcoming all the developers to iOS, who come there first because that's where the money is.

Hell, it's Apple that's driving Android sales. How many Android phones get sold in response to a customer query of "I want something like an iPhone only cheap" or "I want something like an iPhone but don't want to change networks."

Re:This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (0)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898974)

I don't buy that it is people wanting something like iPhone but cheaper because the cost difference is not that great. I mean I went with Droid not because of cost but because I wanted a keyboard and global readiness. iPhone doesn't offer that. There is just far more variety in the Droid market than in the iPhone market and almost no difference in apps at this point.

I guarantee you that the average consumer wouldn't even be able to tell the different between the two OS's side by side.

Re:This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898882)

Yes droid is just killing ios, oh wait apple is making billions per month on it.

Re:This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898944)

Android might be, if indeed you exclude both iPad and iPod touch. But Droid isn't. Neither is any other model of smartphone. Neither is the sum total of smartphones sold by any other manufacturer. Only by adding together all manufacturers that include Android OS, and by excluding 2 of the iOS devices that iOS do sell, to you finally make a figure where Apple isn't winning.

By the same token, all the mountains in Scotland, when added together, exceed the height of Everest (when measured from base camp rather than sea level).

Re:This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (0)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#35899046)

Again. You have to use an even comparison. To your really awful analogy - it would be more like saying Scotland has more mountains that Nepal when you add in bagpipes.

Re:This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (1)

calderra (1034658) | more than 2 years ago | (#35899030)

"I know it's kind of laughable right now, but imagine if Windows Phone or Android make a big dent into Apple's iPhone marketshare." Imagine if Microsoft had this sort of market share. People would be hiding in bunkers crying. But because it's Apple, hooray!

Department of Redundancy Department (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35898362)

How many percent?

lol (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35898386)

Feed the beast sucka's

Maybe they should buy a phone company (1)

Marrow (195242) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898396)

I think they should buy bellsouth. And if you have an iPhone on a Apple carrier network, then you would be able to get features available in no other way. Maybe the phone could use a special protocol when talking with an Apple carrier. But I guess the cell towers are still privately owned right?

Re:Maybe they should buy a phone company (0)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898522)

Bell South is owned by AT&T and I doubt that merger would ever be allowed.

Re:Maybe they should buy a phone company (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898534)

Probably should buy TMobile and ClearWire for the spectrum. It would be cheaper. But Apple will not do that for the same reason that Microsoft isn't building a phone. Apple does not want to tick off the carriers. Plus for Apple it gives someone else to blame. Do you really think Apple wants worry about things like not enough towers in Idaho or a saturated network in SF?
Naw better to rake in the money. Now Google should think about buying TMobile.

Re:Maybe they should buy a phone company (2)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898594)

If approved T-Mobile will be owned by AT&T, too. It's already in the works.

Re:Maybe they should buy a phone company (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898930)

Why would Apple want to compete against the folks that are making them all this money? Apple's advantage is iTunes and their app platform, so any acquisition should feed people's ability to buy things on/for their devices.

They could buy Visa with cash on hand, and I think they'd get a lot more for their money.

Misleading Statistics (2)

VorpalRodent (964940) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898406)

I find this very interesting. In particular, I've had a number of people talk to me about how awesome Macs are, in particular discussing the adoption rate of OSX, etc. One of the things that continually gets pointed to is Apple's growth as evidence of this. While I don't pretend to have a strong grasp on the various numbers bandied about, if such a large percentage of Apple's revenue is solely from the iPhone, it really puts a damper on the idea that "based on Apple's growth, everyone will be using a Mac in just a few months" (hyperbole mine). Don't get me wrong, OSX market share may be increasing (possibly by large numbers), but my anecdotal examination of the world around me didn't seem to jive with what everyone was claiming.

Re:Misleading Statistics (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898514)

I rather agree, but the marketing numbers seem to indicate that few people are buying laptops these days and nobody is buying desktops.

It appears to be iPhones, all the way down.

Re:Misleading Statistics (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898546)

Growth by what? If you measure computer market share, their growth in smartphones isn't influencing your data. If you measure growth by, say, revenue or market capitalization, they've grown by much more than a factor of 2 -- so they've had significant growth even if you remove their entire smartphone business.

Including the hyperbole, though, their growth isn't actually that fast. The iPhone's been out for a number of years and Apple's big growth boom has gone on longer than that. If everyone was going to be using Macs within a few month, then they should be about 95% Macs already. :-)

Re:Misleading Statistics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35898572)

Mac OS X growth is vastly outpacing the overall PC market. They're growing CPU sales by 28% year over year. No other large vendor is growing CPU sales. At all.

If you include iPad as a CPU sale, then prepared to have your mind blown.

http://www.asymco.com/2011/04/14/first-quarter-pc-forecast-windows-down-2-macipad-up-250/ [asymco.com]

Re:Misleading Statistics (3, Informative)

Americano (920576) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898582)

On their Results call yesterday, they said that:
1) Mac sales continued to increase year-over-year;
2) Analysts have predicted a ~3% decrease in the PC market this year;
3) 50% of Macs sold were sold to first-time buyers;

What does this mean? In plain terms, they are slowly winning a larger portion of a slightly-shrinking pie, and 50% of their sales are going to people buying their first mac. As I recall, the story has been pretty similar for the last few years. The iPhone/iPad/iPod halo effect, I suppose.

Will everybody be using a Mac tomorrow, or next month? No, of course not. But there's very little reason to conclude that Macs are dead, or even feeling a little under the weather.

Re:Misleading Statistics (1)

biglig2 (89374) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898606)

Mac sales are increasing by very large numbers - 28% year on year growth of Macs in March, for example.

Of course, you can make huge gains without it saying anything about market share... except that the PC market is currently shrinking, in part due to iPad sales.

Good to be Apple, dontcha think? :-)

Profits are the real story (0)

gig (78408) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898466)

Apple takes over 50% of the profits from the entire mobile handset market. If you think of handset profits as 2 pies, Apple takes a whole pie, plus a piece of the second one, and then what is left of the second pie is split between everyone else, with most of it going to Nokia and RIM. All the Android handsets together are less than 5%. Profits are oxygen, so they determine a lot about who will be able to innovate further going forward, who will still be making phones in 2 years (hint: not Motorola) and so on.

Another interesting thing is it's the same in music players, tablets, and PC's. Apple takes the majority of the profits in those markets as well.

Re:Profits are the real story (1)

manekineko2 (1052430) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898864)

Interesting stats, got a link to the cite?

Assuming your numbers are true, there's another big part of the story there, though, that's missing from your analysis. Most of the Android innovation comes not from the individual manufacturers but from Google. Google manages to finance its innovation in smartphones by leveraging its highly profitable search division, which isn't included in your analysis.

In fact, many would argue that the "innovation" that comes from Android handset manufacturers is in fact harmful, creating fragmentation and poorly designed add-ons to Android that damage the Android brand. Many of the best reviewed Android devices are, in fact, just running vanilla Android on fairly interchangeable hardware.

Re:Profits are the real story (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898914)

Profits are important obviously but even if certain Android handset manufacturers perish there are others who will fill the void. Apple is all or nothing iPhone. If there is a misstep with iOS it's all they have. And considering the missteps Apple made in the 90s there is nothing saying it can't happen again - especially after Jobs leaves.

Sculley predicted a $1 trillion/year market for (1)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898474)

personal communication devices like his ``Knowledge Navigator'' (which eventually became the Newton MessagePad) --- looks like he was right.

William

Stock Value (1)

dakkon1024 (691790) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898476)

And people wonder why the stock price jitters w/ the phones feature set.

iphone is my #1 gadget (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35898490)

makes sense...
my iPhone is my most important gadget.
I bet most people feel similar.
My list goes something like this.

iPhone
Laptop
Camera
XBOX
iPad

Wow... That's a Lot (0)

flappinbooger (574405) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898524)

of Dropped Calls!

Doesn't surprise me... (1)

spagthorpe (111133) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898622)

My informal statistical sampling of sitting on a bench in a mall near Atlanta, GA, told me that at least 75% of the people that walked by me talking on/texting on a phone had an iPhone. Admittedly, that area is rather affluent, but we are talking about a ton of people I took notice of. I often make a game of doing this while people watching; not necessarily cellphones, but other traits. I just happened to notice that a lot of people, even though they were with a group, were all paying attention to their phones and not each other. Depressing actually. Anyway, once I started tracking the phones I saw, the vast majority were iPhones. I was probably there close to an hour, and took a lot of samples.

My thinking at the time, was that if you just spent time at this mall, you'd think Apple had completely killed the cellphone market. I know that's not the case reading elsewhere, but purely on appearance, it seemed that way. Now I know that it simply could be that the people more likely to always be on their phones might like the iPhone more. Younger crowd maybe. I wasn't really paying attention to age. Blackberry users had to work on the weekend, etc. All kinds of ways the stats could be skewed.

This is why we have a jobless recovery (-1, Offtopic)

paulsnx2 (453081) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898748)

So exactly how many jobs are going to be generated by the profits? How much is going to be paid in taxes? My guess.... very very few, and very very little.

This is why we need to tax the Super Rich and tax the Super Rich Corporations. This wealth is going into just a few pockets. Yeah, my 401k is going to get some, and being an Engineer, it is going to be nice compared to most. But the Super Rich (People worth more than 30 million or some such) are going to take a whale of a lot more. And those even richer (say 100 million or more) will get a whale of a lot more than that. I wonder about the billionaires? Yep, there are bigger whales yet!

I have no problem rewarding people for success. And some of that success is the proper management of wealth. But there should be limits. Increasingly, the game is rigged in favor of the rich. And that is demonstrated by companies that make these kinds of profits, and hand their workers (them people working hard for their success) a bone to go bury in the backyard while piling ever increasing funds into investments to insure that their slice is going to be just that much bigger come the next profit announcement.

--We have tried trickle down; Let's give trickle up a shot.

Re:This is why we have a jobless recovery (1)

brainzach (2032950) | more than 2 years ago | (#35898994)

Apple is a public company. RTFM [corporate-ir.net]

For Q2 2011, Apple paid $1.9 billion in taxes on $7.9 billion on profit

Profits...so where are the tax payments? (0)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 2 years ago | (#35899106)

So...an evil American corporation (a triple redundancy) is making profit hand over fist. Hurray! Now how much did Apple pay to the US Government for the privilege of headquartering in America? $24,600,000,000 results in $8,610,000,000 in tax revenue for the federal government alone, not even counting state taxes, plus federal and state income taxes on Apple employees (which Steve Jobs evades by taking $1.00 in salary), plus any local taxes which Apple is liable for. How much did Apple actually pay? How much of their fair share did they evade by accounting tricks? A famous Nobel Peace Prize winner has said, "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money, but you know part of the American way is that you can just keep on making it if you're providing a good product or you're providing a good service." How much is enough for Apple, and when will they start writing checks to the US Treasury? Afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>