What's new

bussiness ethics and (cr)apple! apple makning 92% of profit while selling 20% of phones

Apple’s Share of Smartphone Industry’s Profits Soars to 92%
Apple’s share of profits is remarkable given that it sells less than 20% of smartphones


Roughly 1,000 companies make smartphones. Just one reaps nearly all the profits.

Apple Inc. recorded 92% of the total operating income from the world’s eight top smartphone makers in the first quarter, up from 65% a year earlier, estimates Canaccord Genuity managing director Mike Walkley. Samsung Electronics Co. took 15%, Canaccord says.

Apple and Samsung account for more than 100% of industry profits because other makers broke even or lost money, in Canaccord’s calculations.

Events last week highlighted the lopsided financial picture. Apple is asking suppliers to make a record number of new iPhone models. Meanwhile, Samsung forecast disappointing profits, HTC Corp. reported a quarterly loss, and Microsoft Corp. wrote down 80% of the value of the smartphone business it acquired from Nokia Corp. last year.

Apple’s share of profits is remarkable given that it sells less than 20% of smartphones, in terms of unit sales. The disparity reflects its ability to command much higher prices for its phones. Its rivals mostly use Google Inc.’s Android operating system, making it harder for them to distinguish their offerings, and prompting many to compete by cutting prices. Moreover, Samsung and HTC have made missteps in recent years.

Neil Mawston, executive director at market researcher Strategy Analytics, said many Android vendors are stuck between low-cost, high-volume brands such as China’s Xiaomi Corp. and Apple’s premium smartphones.

“There is that danger that you get trapped in the middle,” Mr. Mawston said. He estimates there are about 1,000 smartphone brands, including several hundred in China.

Even Samsung, which for a time found success making smartphones in all price tiers, is suffering in the now-crowded industry. Last week, the company said it expects profits to decline for a seventh straight quarter in the three months ended in June. Samsung appears to have misjudged demand for its newest phones, ordering too many Galaxy S6 phones and not enough of its higher-priced curved-screen cousin.

The results demonstrate the rapidly shifting fortunes in the smartphone business, which Apple transformed with the iPhone in 2007. At that time, Finland’s Nokia was grabbing about two-thirds of smartphone-industry profits, Canaccord estimates.

By the end of the decade, Apple and BlackBerry Ltd. joined Nokia in the top tier. By 2012, Apple and Samsung essentially split industry profits 50-50. Now, Apple stands far above the others. “That high-end tier has really shifted away from Samsung to Apple,” said Mr. Walkley.

To be sure, many smartphone makers have different strategies than Apple, which gets the lion’s share of its revenue by selling devices.

Microsoft and Xiaomi aim to profit after phones are sold, through paid app downloads, phone accessories or other add-ons. Samsung also makes money from making components that go into its phones, as well as those of rivals.

Representatives of Samsung and HTC didn’t comment. A spokesman for Microsoft declined to comment. A spokesman for China’s Huawei Technologies Co. said the company’s consumer business is profitable, and growing more so as the company sells more midprice and high-end smartphones.

Lenovo Group Ltd. in October bought unprofitable handset maker Motorola Mobility; executives have said they expect to turn Motorola profitable within six quarters.

An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment.

Canaccord’s data doesn’t include privately held companies including Xiaomi and India’s Micromax Informatics Ltd. Mr. Walkley said those companies’ profits—if any—are unlikely to alter the industrywide profit picture.

One key to Apple’s profit dominance: higher prices. Apple’s iPhone last year sold for a global average of $624, compared with $185 for smartphones running Android, according to Strategy Analytics. In its fiscal quarter ended March 28, Apple sold 43% more iPhones than a year earlier, at a higher price. The average iPhone price in the quarter rose by more than $60 to $659, on the strength of the larger-screen iPhone 6 and 6 Plus models.

As the smartphone market matures and growth slows, it is starting to resemble the personal-computer business in some ways. Average PC prices have plunged, and most manufacturers struggle to eke out profits. But Apple captured more than half of industry profits last year, even though its Mac line accounted for only about six of every 100 computers sold, according to Bernstein Research.

Despite the changing leader boards of the past decade, some industry veterans say Apple’s profit crown looks more secure.

“The dominance of Apple is something that is very hard to overcome,” said Denny Strigl, former chief operating officer of Verizon Communications Inc. “Apple has to stumble somehow or another, and I don’t think that’s going to happen.”


so is it ethical to make outrageous profits? i always got from ethics that selling something for outrageous profit is unethical.
apple and tim cook are unethical business wise.

of course there are exception to the rule with supply demand.(for example precious metals or art).

this is corporatism not capitalism.
and funny thing is people protesting against capitalism have an iphone.


what say you!
or do we now think ethics are useless like morals and religion.
 
Isn't the idea of business to make money? People are paying the asking price. Blame it on the people buying them, not the sellers. Nobody is holding a gun to the consumers heads.
 
I know it's just another troll thread, but allow me to use an example of what I consider an unethical or at least an immoral price structure.

Back when hurricane Andrew went through south Florida, many people were in dire need of repairs to their homes that the wind and rain had left inhospitable.

One lumber company seeing the supply and demand hiked prices nearly triple for building supplies. The other (Home Depot) slashed prices and drove greater supplies into the area in an act of community responsibility.

When it was all over, the community completely stopped shopping at the one that gouged and while HD flourished.

Unethical? Debatable.

Apple isn't taking advantage of anyone.
 
I know it's just another troll thread, but allow me to use an example of what I consider an unethical or at least an immoral price structure.

Back when hurricane Andrew went through south Florida, many people were in dire need of repairs to their homes that the wind and rain had left inhospitable.

One lumber company seeing the supply and demand hiked prices nearly triple for building supplies. The other (Home Depot) slashed prices and drove greater supplies into the area in an act of community responsibility.

When it was all over, the community completely stopped shopping at the one that gouged and while HD flourished.


Unethical? Debatable.

Apple isn't taking advantage of anyone.

You can't always count on another company like HD stepping in and slashing prices though, they could have gone the other way as well if they perceive there to be a monopoly/cartel type situation.


The government should always step up and legislate if that situation gets out of control IMO.
 
You can't always count on another company like HD stepping in and slashing prices though, they could have gone the other way as well if they perceive there to be a monopoly/cartel type situation.


The government should always step up and legislate if that situation gets out of control IMO.

*sigh*
 

Well take the Christchurch Earthquake for example... many landlords would have just taken insurance money and left town had the government not step up with an action plan to redevelop the city centre and bring confidence back. We have a center-right government right now and even they realised the need to step in when appropriate.
 
Well take the Christchurch Earthquake for example... many landlords would have just taken insurance money and left town had the government not step up with an action plan to redevelop the city centre and bring confidence back. We have a center-right government right now and even they realised the need to step in when appropriate.

A governments role should be to provide an incentive and encourage not to strongarm, imo. Some things are SUPPOSED to fail. Whose decision should it be which are and which are not?
I'm not suggesting Christchurch should fail, but I disagree with a government involvement that tells citizens and business owners whether they move out of an area or they MUST stay put.
One area suffers where another flourishes... it's not a local politicians role to play God.
 
A governments role should be to provide an incentive and encourage not to strongarm, imo. Some things are SUPPOSED to fail. Whose decision should it be which are and which are not?
I'm not suggesting Christchurch should fail, but I disagree with a government involvement that tells citizens and business owners whether they move out of an area or they MUST stay put.
One area suffers where another flourishes... it's not a local politicians role to play God.

Yeah tough call.. when the Earthquake hits and the landlords got paid, a tonne of money was leaving the city to as far as Australia for better & quicker yields. No need to go through the rebuilding & risk involved with city not regenerating. People who would have suffered the most would have been the residents who don't know any better and are powerless...


I guess you could say the Government can always incentivise the landlords to put the money back into rebuild but then there is uncertainties involved in that too.


Welfare of all residents should come before those of a few wealthy landlords IMO...
 
Yeah tough call.. when the Earthquake hits and the landlords got paid, a tonne of money was leaving the city to as far as Australia for better & quicker yields. No need to go through the rebuilding & risk involved with city not regenerating. People who would have suffered the most would be the residents who don't know any better...


I guess you could say the Government can always incentivise the landlords to put the money back into rebuild but then there is uncertainties involved in that too.


Welfare of all residents should come before those of a few wealthy landlords IMO...

I understand your take and stand by my posts.
 
Seriously, what the hell business is it anybody's business what Apple makes for profits other than their share holders? Is your life lessened even a little because of the profits they made? Other people make smart phones, other people make smart phones that are better AND cheaper, so there are no monopoly issues.

As far as Christchurch goes, there is a strong argument to NOT rebuild there. Just like the idiots who rebuild 17 feet from the Mississippi River when they get flooded out. I understand that it is their home and all that they have known, but it was a bad decision to be there in the first place. Insurance has now given you the ability to rethink that decision. Cities boom and bust all of the time, there is no need for government to cosign onto that loan, or worse, force private individuals to.

And as far as people who "don't know any better," much of that comes from other people wiping their butts for them. Sometimes the best thing that can happen to someone is a little contact with bad consequences. There is no better teacher in life.
 
Seriously, what the hell business is it anybody's business what Apple makes for profits other than their share holders? Is your life lessened even a little because of the profits they made? Other people make smart phones, other people make smart phones that are better AND cheaper, so there are no monopoly issues.

As far as Christchurch goes, there is a strong argument to NOT rebuild there. Just like the idiots who rebuild 17 feet from the Mississippi River when they get flooded out. I understand that it is their home and all that they have known, but it was a bad decision to be there in the first place. Insurance has now given you the ability to rethink that decision. Cities boom and bust all of the time, there is no need for government to cosign onto that loan, or worse, force private individuals to.

And as far as people who "don't know any better," much of that comes from other people wiping their butts for them. Sometimes the best thing that can happen to someone is a little contact with bad consequences. There is no better teacher in life.


1) settling in Seismic fault-lines is absolutely nothing like settling in flood plains. The threat of earthquakes is much more sporadic, and unexpected-- not to mention how widespread these fault systems are.
2) the ppl who got the brunt of the damage in famous floods & storms like Katrina were the poorer parts of town (Lower 9th Ward) that had none of the flood-preventing infrastructure that the wealthier parts of town had.
 
A governments role should be to provide an incentive and encourage not to strongarm, imo. Some things are SUPPOSED to fail. Whose decision should it be which are and which are not?
I'm not suggesting Christchurch should fail, but I disagree with a government involvement that tells citizens and business owners whether they move out of an area or they MUST stay put.
One area suffers where another flourishes... it's not a local politicians role to play God.

Keep in mind how WAY ****ing easier it is for the wealthy to mobilize and move elsewhere than it is for the poorer. My parents spent every last dime of their savings to leave Kosovo in the 90s.
 
Keep in mind how WAY ****ing easier it is for the wealthy to mobilize and move elsewhere than it is for the poorer. My parents spent every last dime of their savings to leave Kosovo in the 90s.

I get that. I am not the least insensitive.

In the case of Christchurch, as if I know anything about the actual details, the government should have created fantastic incentives to the private sector and to whatever measure that didn't work, provide financial aid to those displaced that are unable to do for themselves, and get them back on their feet.

In no event should a government mandate that a business owner can't leave town and MUST reinvest.


This idea of wealthy vs. poor is too often lazy and overstated. As recently as 15 years ago I went through a period that I had only enough money to BARELY feed my family (and I didn't eat for almost a week - family never knew that). NO ONE helped me... and we had lost everything. I made bold choices, risked everything/nothing, and pulled us out of it. It took nearly two years of HARD WORK and intestinal fortitude to see even a slight change, but we did it.

Good on your family for being willing to spend every last dime to better their situation rather than wallow in pity and stay put. That may sound harsh for the 'others' but life is full of tough choices.
 
I just hope that there is a study being conducted of the people who were relocated from New Orleans to Houston after Hurricane Katrina and what the comparative outcomes were in relation to those of the same social strata that stayed. . .
 
Hmmm. Certainly not unethical. I do wonder sometimes why so many people choose Apple. I think it's a status thing. If all phones cost the same, I think most people would choose an Apple. However, I bet that 90% of people that pay a premium price for an iPhone don't even use the additional features that the iPhone provides.
 
Hmmm. Certainly not unethical. I do wonder sometimes why so many people choose Apple. I think it's a status thing. If all phones cost the same, I think most people would choose an Apple. However, I bet that 90% of people that pay a premium price for an iPhone don't even use the additional features that the iPhone provides.

For me it was ease of integrating my iTunes music and doing stuff with my wife's iPhone.
 
What? They're making money selling phones?? How dare they!!
 
Back
Top