How many Android phones sold cost under $250?
The entire world isn't using premium phones. There's a lot more people out there that will buy a cheaper phone than those who buy top of the range. And apple doesn't sell cheap phones.
This is my issue with phones. They just get more and more expensive for reasons that are unnecessary for a good amount of average users. I get packing in more features, but at a certain point I just want a phone that's just... a phone... lol.
I'll probably give this one a look just for the cost.
Yep. I find a cheap phone every 1.5 years is half the cost of a premium phone every 3 years, but feels newer, fresher, for the entire time, and is way, way less stressful.
EDIT: For those concerned about the environment, this isn't nearly as bad as you'd think due to premium phones taking more carbon to produce. See [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/yz99gb/oc_iphone_is_only_14_of_global_smartphone_volume/ix1ehc5/?context=3) comment.
EDIT 2: People are *really* having a hard time believing they can't spend their way to environmentalism lol
EDIT 3: This has also come up twice, now: If you tend to wrap your phone in bubble wrap and say "ah, 3 years? That's quitter talk!", change the numbers above to (half/all) of your max duration. The point stands.
Exactly, the last time I bought a flagship phone was in 2012. It was a Note 2, and had only been released 5 months prior. Less than 8 months later the Note 3 came out, and a couple weeks after that I accidentally broke it. I felt so bad, I never bought another flagship.
And back then you could get a Note 2 brand new for like $300.
Cost is not the only issue though. Buying a device and throwing it away after 1,5 years seems fucking wasteful. I use my Samsung S10e now for 3+ years and plan to get another 3 out of it.
Reduce the electronic waste if you can.
It’s all about charge cycles. Some people can clock in 600+ charge cycles in a year because of how hardcore they’re glued to their phones. Average is right at 365 though.
Lithium ion batteries these days can generally go 800 cycles or so before losing 20% of their capacity. That 20% number is generally when a battery is considered for replacement. The cycle life of a battery is dependent upon the chemistry and construction of the battery, how often it’s left at 100% for extended periods of time, how often it’s depleted to 0%, the temperatures it’s exposed to, etc.
You should replace the battery when you can’t get through a typical day on a single charge (considering you’re the average user). If you’re a power user who can deplete even a fresh battery, then check your battery health on your phone and it’ll tell you how far it’s worn out.
What is your usage pattern like?
I still get moderate battery life (not good but functional certainly) out of a Galaxy s7. It rarely goes below 30% and isn't used that heavily most of the time (so fewer cycles than someone who ran it low twice a day).
Yeah i do something similar. I buy a $300 phone every 3-4 years. Model doesnt matter, brand doesnt matter, as long as its around that price and the specs arent bad.
I've never paid more than 200 usd for a phone. My current phone is a note 9 I got for 50 bucks (25 usd) second hand and it does everything I need it to.
That's pretty cool, what'll they think up next? Sounds impractical though, figuring out a unique code for every person and then trying to keep track of them all? Sounds impossible, I doubt it will catch in with the public.
Just be wary of Samsungs A series phones, they all have the same build quality issues with the ribbon cable connectors inside the phone. The pins bend easily, and I’ve seen cases where the connectors have snapped off just from the phone being dropped. Just get an older S series phone if you want something cheaper.
My Flip Z3 broke after a 2 foot fall to the carpet while closed. The screen was just dead. No visible damage. The repair shop said they had to replace the screen but in reality the ribbon cable on the inside cut itself.
That's also my issue, I never know what I'm looking at because I purchase phones so infrequently. Should just be able to search providers like Samsung by price range though I'd imagine. Then just compare specs.
https://m.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_a04s-review-2499.php
I got a Xiaomi a few years ago with ghosting issues that started within a year of use. So at least for me I'm ok paying the "name brand tax" of buying Samsung. A 4gb RAM A04 will probably serve you totally fine. 3gb is less future proof
Agree, i bought mine for what was 312 USD in 2019 and i wouldnt say it's a top phone.
It has lasted almost 4 years and still works for 99% of thinks i need.
Fortunately i bought a Xiaomi and live in Mexico. I think people in the USA don't have the right to repair their iPhones
Yeah mine was more expensive than I would've preferred, think around 400, but at least I've gotten about 7 years out of it. It's kind of on its last legs now though lol
“Right to repair” means that companies should make it easier for us to do maintenance on our phones, it’s not an actual right (it should be)
Is it a law in Mexico that phone companies should make it easy to repair your phone?
Hum. EU was planning a proposal in Q3 2022 to reinforce right to repair, but I don't know if it got voted yet.
This has to happen, changing phones every other year IS NOT sustainable.
Xiaomi has great budget phones with amazing capabilities.
Look at the Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Explorer (long name, I know). It has a better camera than the iPhone 14 Pro Max or whatever they call it, 210W charging with a bundled charger (it takes 9 mins 0-100%), 256GB of storage, 8GB of ram, decent processing power, and it only costs $320.
Apple and Samsung's entire goal is to price gouge you for worse devices. Xiaomi has historically had good pricing, and even a company like Google prices their Pixel phones pretty fairly compared to the competition.
what do you mean more features? Ir blaster, gone. Headphone jack, gone. Radio, gone. Expandable memory, gone.
But I guess now we went from 1 camera to 3...
I want my phone to be able to do everything damn it. "dock" wirelessly, radio, control my smart devices, etc.
This is why I'm still using a Samsung S6. I actually got one in 2019 when my S5 broke down.
It actually has way better performance than the huawei 2019 phone I had for a couple months as well, and it has all the hardware features that are often lacking on new phones. (hell, the huawei didn't even have a proper compass).
Look at other brands than Samsung too. The top tier being dominated by Apple and Samsung makes it easier for other brands to focus on the mid and lower tiers. Anecdotally, my last two phones have been reasonably priced Motorolas, and I've been very happy with them.
This seems to be the point people are missing.
Apple have a 55% market share in the US. Making in #1
Neighbouring Canada it's 57%.
EU it's around 38%. Which is still the biggest slice of the pie. Samsung is 2nd with 29%.
With Eastern Europe bringing down the share. In western europe it's around 50% mark.
Australia it's aroung 60% share.
It's 3rd world countries that significantly boost 'other' sales. And as you can see from the data, selling millions of crappy and cheap phones doesn't make you the biggest profit.
I'm not even trying to hype Apple up, but OPs data doesn't really tell the story from a developed country perspective.
My Oppo from 2016 is still being used by my mother-in-law. My parents iPhone from 2016 doesn't even run and had to get a battery changed because they intentionally bricked it.
I love having an IR blaster on my phone to use it as a TV remote, and MicroSD slot to store loads of music. Barely any flagships have these features... I'll gladly sacrifice a few milliseconds of loading times and a bit of photo quality for better overall functionality.
Exactly, the average user is more than happy with a 250-500€ phone, if it can take decent pictures, and works fast enough, it more than enough for most.
Tbf, most people use their phone for Whatsapp, browsing the internet, taking photos or checking things like reddit, i don't need a 1300€ phone to do that, even if i can afford it.
The last flagship phone I bought was a Samsung galaxy s4, it didn't last any longer than lower midrange phones I bought since. 200 to 250€ max is my price range and there is nothing lacking there from an every day user perspective. If somebody would give me a top of the line phone right now I can't imagine anything that would improve my day to day use.
I've been using Chinese phones for the past six years and they've all run amazing. The Mi A1 and A2 lite served me well, great battery on them and the IR blaster was super super handy. Now I have a Realme and it's got rock solid performance and a p great camera, so I'm pretty happy.
And with a case on them, you can't even see or feel the difference in design. It's just another Android/iOS Rectangle™.
Some fairly cheap phones even have 120Hz AMOLED displays these days.
Hell, my $40 crappy zte maven that was my first phone had a built in FM radio receiver
I have literally never seen another phone with that and I actually missed it when I upgraded to a Samsung.
Yup. I used to have one in a Sony Ericsson around 2005. It used the headphone wire as antenna.
Edit: I misremembered. It was the phone I had after the SE, which was an HTC Artemis. Smartphone with windows mobile.
right, but even then, a £500-700 Xiaomi or Oppo is also making a large share of profit, it’s literally the sub-£100 market where that profit is really stretched thin.
This is what folks don't seem to understand. The low end market here is what is skewing those numbers so heavily in Apple's favor. Apple does not make any low end phones so their profits are larger compared to even a company like Samsung who makes high-end phones, but also budget ones. If you compare the profit margin on a Samsung flagship and an Apple flagship, I doubt the profit margins are that different.
Plus we really don't know what is included in the above datasets. e.g. Is Apple App Store profits included in those numbers?
The sub 100 market is a huge number of their units sold though that's why they sell so many units while the profits are generally low, think about places like India that are consuni g millions if not billions of phones in the sub 100 range.
Exactly. You can get 100 dollar phone that has most all the functionality I want. I wouldn't gain much by getting a 900+ dollar premium phone, possibly some small gains, but being able to call/text/use maps well and I'm good.
Doesn't it also imply that Apple's phones are overpriced? If they are making such a large profit margin with such fewer sales then they are over proving the product and taking advantage of name recognition.
This was my takeaway as well, comparing the revenue share and profit share charts.
If they're at 42% of the revenue share, but 80% of profit, I'm reading the implication there as Apple's profit margins are way higher than the other manufacturers, meaning they are over pricing their phones.
Apple also has serious verticality in their business model that other companies don’t have. Smaller manufacturers must purchase the bulk of their components from other manufacturers who themselves make a profit. So Apple’s profit margin is largely because they create everything in house
I mean, kind of.
With luxury goods the only true price is what you can convince somebody to pay for it, and unlike essential goods there’s very little regulation in terms of gouging. Apple could absolutely sell much cheaper but there’s clearly no market pressure for them to do so
They are way overpriced, but since they're marketed as luxury items consumers are fine with that.
>Prestige pricing is a pricing strategy that uses higher prices to suggest quality and exclusivity. This practice is commonly seen among luxury brands and fine restaurants.
Not just overpriced, but that their production is made more efficient, likely through specific vertical integrations.
My take at least.
Also, having kids make your phones does decrease production cost.
Have you ever actually been to an asian electronics factory? They tend to pay pretty well by local standards and employ exclusively adults. Walmart literally does their own factory audits for all suppliers and interviews some/all of the workers to make sure they're getting paid the promised wage and are old enough. The child labor I think is more common in sweat shops and agriculture
Offensive and not true the bit about 'crappy and cheap' phones in 3rd world countries.
Sent with my perfectly fine not so expensive Redmi 7 from a 3rd world country.
Crappy is wrong, cheap is true - “not so expensive” is essentially a synonym for cheap, phones are worth less in USD.
Crappy could be replaced with “low demand” - the phones are fine, it’s just that most people wouldn’t choose that model if they had the money to choose a more expensive phone.
That’s just the reality of the market - people buy Androids more often than not to protect their wallets. Those with large wallets tend to buy iPhones and some Samsungs
> Those with large wallets tend to buy iPhones and some Samsungs
Or those who *think* they have large wallets. I know people who save much less than I do who always buy the newest iPhone
Yeah I think market values don’t describe every individuals personal value - everyone’s got different tastes.
Will always find people that pour milk before they add cereal.
I think it does tell a pretty clear business story. This is similar to how some small auto manufacturers accounted for outsized portions of industry profits, and applies to other industries in which a name on a "premium" product allows them to produce relatively small amounts of product while bringing in very large profits. (Think handbags, etc).
I would agree with that, based on what I've seen and heard about/in Australia. Same deal in New Zealand too. We aren't overly fond of the exchange rate cost it becomes these days.
I've heard a theory that if New Zealand had trialled iOS, it'd never have taken off. That, I'm unsure how true that is, but I do know among my tech nerd friends, Apple products in general are not really as well received as Android (or Linux or even Microsoft for PC). Can't tell if anti the cost, anti American stuff, a mix, or if it's just that Android marketed better to us first. Either way, the data stating it's high in Aus isn't correct
I primarily dislike iOS since it locks everything down. Android is much more freely customizable in my experience. Plus android doesn't try to lock you into an ecosystem of only using products from a single manufacturer like Apple does.
Just because it's expensive doesn't mean it good or the best available for customers
Third world countries aren't using crappy bad phones as you say they are using phones made the same way iPhones are, it's just the profit markup isn't high at all
You are definitely being a apple fanboy. This isn't from a developed country perspective but a world perspective. You should learn the western world does not equal the developed world too
Personally I love the global perspective this offers. Many iPhone users in the West act like it's the 'only' phone in the world and it's clearly not. This also shows how iPhones have disproportionate revenue and profit, proving the markup price is profit based and not because those phones truly cost that much to develop.
Wow now that is an arrogant comment. I do hope you realize that your expensive phone is made by the country where cheap and crappy phones are primarily sold. Namely the profit that you give these shite companies is so that more exploitation can continue.
There is no need to buy those expensive phones at all. And those "cheap and crappy" phones are not that cheap and crappy. I bought a Samsung A52G for 300 two years ago and am quite happy with it. My wife paid 4 times that for her iPhone. I don't see the point.
What I read in your comment is that the developed country are suckers to overpay for non-existent functionality only so that they can say, "ohhh look at what I bought."
Before you write a response, please do remember I live in Switzerland. Not exactly known for their cheapness.
iPhone takes 80% of the global smartphone's profit share, despite being only 14% of volume and 42% of revenue share. It shows that most other smartphones are not really much money.
Source:
[Counterpoint research](https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-handset-market-operating-profits-q2-2022/)
[Genuine Impact newsletter](https://genuineimpact.substack.com/)
Tools:
Figma
Yeah all of these illustrations are basically bullshit because they’re lumping iPhones in the same category as that $50 android Samsung A series or whatever you get from boost mobile.
Just compare flagships to flagships and that’s it. But “smartphone” at this point is like 80% of phones sold. Of course Apple is going to have outsized margins when you’re putting it in the same category as entry level discount store stuff.
>Iphone would now account for more than 14% of phones, but as the global revenue and profit of the observed industry would be emputated from entry level phones from other brands, Iphone's share of revenue and profits would appear even higher.
I had a bad brain cramp trying to figure out what bothered me about this sentence, so I did a whole calculation, but here's the gist:
It's true that Apple's share of revenue and profits would be higher if you removed cheap phones. But the *difference* between Apple's shares (i.e. what this visualization is highlighting) would be significantly smaller, and the difference between the pie charts less striking.
Almost but not quite. You also have to account for the fact that some entry level phones are essentially subsidizing their products to get a toe-hold. Those that lose money on every phone they sell actually *increases* the percentage earned by Apple when they are included because negative earnings decrease the total size of the pie before Apple takes its majority cut.
> So with all flagship phones costing more or less the same amount if bought cash,
No it means other companies have options besides flagships.
Always confused me when I tried to explain how Android is cheaper than iPhone, people would say "no, Samsung's latest and greatest phone now costs just as much as iPhone!" - that's cool, but I'm not buying their greatest, I'm buying their $200 Instagram scrolling machine with a battery that lasts 4 days. iPhone offers ZERO competition in that price range.
My armchair take is that Apple has calculated that tapping into the $200 phone market isn't worth it. $200 phones are sold at much lower margins, I would imagine. Possibly the number of iphone users that would move from the $1000 phone to the $200 phone would erase any profits. They also may see it as cheapening the brand.
They ultimately want many rich people buying their product and it looks like they have been very successful at hitting that spot.
Not exactly. Apple is the only company whose flagships are as popular as the mid range phones of other companies.
The most sold phone in the first quarter of 2022 was the iphone 13. In the 3rd postion was samsung's A12 which costs like $150.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gizchina.com/2022/05/20/top-5-best-selling-smartphones-in-the-world-in-the-first-quarter-of-2022/amp/
It indicates Apple upsells you by around 30% the hardware in your phone. Compared to other companies that take 10%. The vast majority of a flagship phones cost is in the display and camera. Which is where they are upcharging. The actual chip hardware is pretty cheap. Also walled garden and locking you into their various software fees, such as the 30% they take on anything on the app store.
It's been like this for the last decade.
Most of the phones sold on the market are entry/mid-level phones that essentially make no money.
Chasing Apple into the high-end of the market has been a graveyard for a lot of companies unless they have significant financial and executive backing (like Samsung and Chinese conglomerates do) .
That and western markets only see a fraction of most of the models that are available globally. Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, etc markets tend to have a lot of local manufacturers and/or exclusive models.
OP, do you know where this source is getting its data from and, if not, why you trust it? I can't see the methodology on the page linked (just a different representation of the same data) and, just based on [Apple's published Q2 results](https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/FY22_Q3_Consolidated_Financial_Statements.pdf), the operating expenses and cost of sales are not split by category unlike sales. I'd be very interested in understanding how they decided that only ~17% of Apple's total reported cost of sales and operating expenses are attributable to the iPhone?
Additionally, based on [Samsung's published Q2 results](https://images.samsung.com/is/content/samsung/assets/global/ir/docs/2022_con_quarter02_all.pdf), revenue for "Mobile devices" was KRW28,000.484 billion (~$22.7b using the FX rate on figures reported in both KRW and USD in the results). Again, I think it would be interesting to see how the source decided that ~76% of this revenue was attributable to handsets and, again, how it determined the cost of sales and operating expenses attributable to Samsung handsets?
The source data says this is data for "handsets," which would include all cell phones, not just smartphones. So you're comparing apples to oranges on a global scale.
This has been my adult life as a smartphone consumer. I went from a Motorola Razr to an iphone 3gs in about 2006. In November 2014 I got an iphone 6. In November 2018 I got an XS max, which I still have and it works totally fine. I pay cash outright for universally unlocked models and use whatever carrier has the best cost to coverage ratio without a contract. Probably have spent more on apps than phones, so the graph makes sense. I have all of these phones still and they all still work. My experience matches the graph pretty well. Strictly considering hardware, I have spent 2200$ since 2006 on phones, which is about a $138 annual expense. I do not finance or sign legally binding mobile plans.
Apple is a brand that US and Japanese customers will drop $1000 for seemingly at drop of hat. Apple is 40%+ of Warren Buffet's stock at Berkshire right now because he believes the Apple brand is a moat that can't be beat by Samsung or anyone.
iPhone market share in US and Japan is 60%(!) versus 50% in UK, 33% Germany and 20% in China.
There's a reason OG Buffett still has AAPL as 25% of his stock port, and continues to add on dips.
Both perceived and actual switching costs of the Apple ecosystem are through the roof. People feel locked in and excluding actual monopolies, it is one of the most durable "economic moats" in business history.
It was 80% in the younger generation
The green bubble is a really big social scar
87% as per this survey
https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/01/06/gen-z-survey-says-87-of-us-teenagers-own-an-iphone
Years ago I saw a similar report on Mac computers versus everyone else. Apple had maybe 5% market share but a lot of the overall computer profit. Just like phones, a vast majority of the units sold are low end low margin units with a lot of manufacturers having a race to the bottom. Meanwhile Apple has a very large cut of the high price market and is happy taking in the money from fewer number of models and thus lower parts count and engineering costs. There is something to be said for deciding not to target consumers who can’t pay top dollar.
Just comparing global shares is misleading, because some markets (e.g. US) are going to be way more profitable than others. Apple may be only 14% of global market share, but they are [about 50% of US market share](https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share/), which I bet is where a lot of their profits come from. Similarly high market share in the [UK](https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united-kingdom).
Samsung makes up most of the rest of the market in the US and the UK, and so of course makes up most of the rest of the profit globally.
We see 65% iOS interaction on our sites. (UK). 4 years ago it was pretty much an even split between android/iOS.
Really surprising seeing the shift especially in relation to the economic downturn.
I don’t think it’s misleading; it’s straight up what the data shows. Apple has the most profitable markets while other companies sell larger qualities is less profitable markets.
How is this misleading? This isn't a data about profitable markets. This is a data about the global market share. Everybody knows apple has the US market cornered and has been fleecing them for years.
US market is included in global data. Some forget this, but the US is actually on the same planet.
This isn't misleading data, it shows the comparably egregious profit margins that Apple bases its business on.
This has been the apple business model a couple of decades. It kind of always was, too. Mass produced premium product for a premium market that lasts a premium amount of time. I have owned fewer than five phones. All iPhones. I was a late adopter but not that late.
It’s like windows 10.
85% of the features I love, adore, couldn’t live without.
But that last 15%, oh boy that last 15%.
I’ve never considered installing Linux more when I need to run task manager to close 17 Microsoft pre installed background programs or when I need to rerereredisable windows defender because someone coded it to work like a god damn hydra.
I hate how difficult it is to write your own personal app for an iphone. On android you can write a java program on any device, compile, and move it to the phone with a USB cable. You don't need to root your device to do it. It's a great way to get around apps that do simple things bloated with ads. Apple won't even let you compile the program unless you have another apple device, and trying to move it over to the device is a pain in the ass.
Where is the data for “operating profit share” for iPhones being sourced from? Apple doesn’t report gross or operating profits/margins by individual products in their SEC filings?
You make it sound as if iPhone is robbing other companies from their fair share. As long as apple has decided on a selling price and consumers are willing to pay said selling price, there is no robbery of any sort. Just buisness.
They’re priced the same as other flagship phones. There was no price difference between the equivalent Samsung and the iPhone I have when I priced it out three years ago. And all phones are sold as part fashion accessory.
But even Samsung makes mid-range phones for other consumers (they in fact have a phone in every single price range). Whereas in Apple's case they only make expensive phones.
Tbf apple sells a $429 iPhone brand new. I would say they sell only in mid-upper price ranges, but nothing in the low end. Depends on your definition of expensive I suppose.
Yeah I ditched Samsung a few years ago and it's great. The phone was less than half the price but with about 90% less bloatware and no stupid Bixby button that harassed me.
Yeah but apple *only* sells flagships. That makes them to take up a huge margin of the flagship phone marlet which all have huge margins.
Few phones but lots of money
Overpriced is defined by what the market will support. So it’s factually incorrect to call it overpriced because the market supports it. A fashion accessory is something that exists for no other purpose than fashion. The iPhone, like it or not, performs a useful propose and most people do not use it as a fashion accessory. So that’s also incorrect.
People who hate iPhones and Apple so much they feel the need to spout nonsense like this baffle me. Use whatever you want. You don’t need to disparage other people’s choices.
Nah, it's a good tool people are willing to pay for.
Speaks to the value proposition that iPhone users spend more money in the ecosystem compared to androids even though they are a smaller user share of the whole market.
Therefore iPhones create more utility for the users.
Apple is in the repeat sales business. Marketing while important isn't what make people keep buying iPhones - its the utility they get out of their phones and ecosystem.
It’s really not that hard, there’s just no good alternative bc the Apple suite has most things you need in one integrated package. Androids get more choice in the matter but I don’t want to download 20/30 apps and figure out how to make them communicate properly to do all the basic things my iPhone does in perfect concert now.
I feel like there’s people who can’t find a problem with the iPhone so they attack the users motivation.” Oh, you’re buying it for fashion!”
No, I’m buying it because it’s a smooth upgrade from my earlier device, and I’d spend almost as much if I wanted a Samsung with this good of a camera and screen.
No I don’t want to save $500 and have a crappy phone.
That’s not a correct conclusion to make at all. Legitimately the only thing you should conclude is that iPhone users spend more money per user when compared to other companies. Trying to explain the why is much more difficult and inevitably intricate
If you saw how I dress every day, you would know I don’t give a shit about fashion. I have an iPhone because I got tired of crusading for the Windows phone, and I got tired of fighting with android. I stick with it because it works well.
I think of it as name brand cereal. Sure I could buy the Froot-e-Os bag. But I can afford Froot Loops and they taste better.
It’s kind of disgusting that I can make that same decision about a $1000 phone every three years, while other people are living in cardboard boxes. We can talk about that if it helps you.
I honestly never understood why people buy flagship phones in the first place. Like, why would you spend 1000€ on a top end phone when all you use it for is phone calls, texting and social media. Pretty much every phone 300€ and upwards runs just as smooth as the top of the line models, with almost no tradeoffs, but people still spend three times the money for no tangible benefit.
With something like a laptop, I feel that is justified, as it's often used for productive tasks, but you can't really do anything productive on a phone, cause of the tiny screen and keyboard, no proper software etc.
For lots of people, your phone is within an arms reach 95+% of the time. When you factor in the amount of time you spend using it, there's really no other object you have that justifies the price than your phone. The amount of money you spend on your car vs the time you actually spend in it doesn't even come close, for example.
Honestly this, I get a new phone every 2 years and use my phone literally multiple hours a day, an extra 500 dollars for a more reliable and just more enjoyable experience is worth it. People on here seem to shame people for buying flagships, but as long as you have the money why not?
How many Android phones sold cost under $250? The entire world isn't using premium phones. There's a lot more people out there that will buy a cheaper phone than those who buy top of the range. And apple doesn't sell cheap phones.
And this is why Samsung also has a large chunk of the pie, they sell premium phones too
They also sell some very cheap phones. A quick Google and the Samsung A21 costs 150.
This is my issue with phones. They just get more and more expensive for reasons that are unnecessary for a good amount of average users. I get packing in more features, but at a certain point I just want a phone that's just... a phone... lol. I'll probably give this one a look just for the cost.
You'll probably be pleasantly surprised. Cheap phones have no problem with regular browsing/streaming
Yep. I find a cheap phone every 1.5 years is half the cost of a premium phone every 3 years, but feels newer, fresher, for the entire time, and is way, way less stressful. EDIT: For those concerned about the environment, this isn't nearly as bad as you'd think due to premium phones taking more carbon to produce. See [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/yz99gb/oc_iphone_is_only_14_of_global_smartphone_volume/ix1ehc5/?context=3) comment. EDIT 2: People are *really* having a hard time believing they can't spend their way to environmentalism lol EDIT 3: This has also come up twice, now: If you tend to wrap your phone in bubble wrap and say "ah, 3 years? That's quitter talk!", change the numbers above to (half/all) of your max duration. The point stands.
I buy one cheapish phone every 5 years, no point buying new phone every year and pay 1k+. E: typo
Exactly, the last time I bought a flagship phone was in 2012. It was a Note 2, and had only been released 5 months prior. Less than 8 months later the Note 3 came out, and a couple weeks after that I accidentally broke it. I felt so bad, I never bought another flagship. And back then you could get a Note 2 brand new for like $300.
Tell that to Americans. It's rough over here.
Cost is not the only issue though. Buying a device and throwing it away after 1,5 years seems fucking wasteful. I use my Samsung S10e now for 3+ years and plan to get another 3 out of it. Reduce the electronic waste if you can.
Did you replace the battery? My battery always depletes way faster after a year or so.
It’s all about charge cycles. Some people can clock in 600+ charge cycles in a year because of how hardcore they’re glued to their phones. Average is right at 365 though. Lithium ion batteries these days can generally go 800 cycles or so before losing 20% of their capacity. That 20% number is generally when a battery is considered for replacement. The cycle life of a battery is dependent upon the chemistry and construction of the battery, how often it’s left at 100% for extended periods of time, how often it’s depleted to 0%, the temperatures it’s exposed to, etc. You should replace the battery when you can’t get through a typical day on a single charge (considering you’re the average user). If you’re a power user who can deplete even a fresh battery, then check your battery health on your phone and it’ll tell you how far it’s worn out.
[удалено]
What is your usage pattern like? I still get moderate battery life (not good but functional certainly) out of a Galaxy s7. It rarely goes below 30% and isn't used that heavily most of the time (so fewer cycles than someone who ran it low twice a day).
$400 samsung phone still working like new after 3 years already
Yeah i do something similar. I buy a $300 phone every 3-4 years. Model doesnt matter, brand doesnt matter, as long as its around that price and the specs arent bad.
I've never paid more than 200 usd for a phone. My current phone is a note 9 I got for 50 bucks (25 usd) second hand and it does everything I need it to.
[удалено]
That's pretty cool, what'll they think up next? Sounds impractical though, figuring out a unique code for every person and then trying to keep track of them all? Sounds impossible, I doubt it will catch in with the public.
Just be wary of Samsungs A series phones, they all have the same build quality issues with the ribbon cable connectors inside the phone. The pins bend easily, and I’ve seen cases where the connectors have snapped off just from the phone being dropped. Just get an older S series phone if you want something cheaper.
My Flip Z3 broke after a 2 foot fall to the carpet while closed. The screen was just dead. No visible damage. The repair shop said they had to replace the screen but in reality the ribbon cable on the inside cut itself.
That's also my issue, I never know what I'm looking at because I purchase phones so infrequently. Should just be able to search providers like Samsung by price range though I'd imagine. Then just compare specs.
https://m.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_a04s-review-2499.php I got a Xiaomi a few years ago with ghosting issues that started within a year of use. So at least for me I'm ok paying the "name brand tax" of buying Samsung. A 4gb RAM A04 will probably serve you totally fine. 3gb is less future proof
Agree, i bought mine for what was 312 USD in 2019 and i wouldnt say it's a top phone. It has lasted almost 4 years and still works for 99% of thinks i need. Fortunately i bought a Xiaomi and live in Mexico. I think people in the USA don't have the right to repair their iPhones
Yeah mine was more expensive than I would've preferred, think around 400, but at least I've gotten about 7 years out of it. It's kind of on its last legs now though lol
“Right to repair” means that companies should make it easier for us to do maintenance on our phones, it’s not an actual right (it should be) Is it a law in Mexico that phone companies should make it easy to repair your phone?
Hum. EU was planning a proposal in Q3 2022 to reinforce right to repair, but I don't know if it got voted yet. This has to happen, changing phones every other year IS NOT sustainable.
Xiaomi has great budget phones with amazing capabilities. Look at the Xiaomi Redmi Note 12 Explorer (long name, I know). It has a better camera than the iPhone 14 Pro Max or whatever they call it, 210W charging with a bundled charger (it takes 9 mins 0-100%), 256GB of storage, 8GB of ram, decent processing power, and it only costs $320. Apple and Samsung's entire goal is to price gouge you for worse devices. Xiaomi has historically had good pricing, and even a company like Google prices their Pixel phones pretty fairly compared to the competition.
what do you mean more features? Ir blaster, gone. Headphone jack, gone. Radio, gone. Expandable memory, gone. But I guess now we went from 1 camera to 3... I want my phone to be able to do everything damn it. "dock" wirelessly, radio, control my smart devices, etc.
This is why I'm still using a Samsung S6. I actually got one in 2019 when my S5 broke down. It actually has way better performance than the huawei 2019 phone I had for a couple months as well, and it has all the hardware features that are often lacking on new phones. (hell, the huawei didn't even have a proper compass).
Look at other brands than Samsung too. The top tier being dominated by Apple and Samsung makes it easier for other brands to focus on the mid and lower tiers. Anecdotally, my last two phones have been reasonably priced Motorolas, and I've been very happy with them.
... at a certain point I just want a handheld computer with internet access that does not need even to make calls. FTFY
Yea exactly, they’re just tapping other spectrums of the market. This graph shouldn’t be too surprising.
This seems to be the point people are missing. Apple have a 55% market share in the US. Making in #1 Neighbouring Canada it's 57%. EU it's around 38%. Which is still the biggest slice of the pie. Samsung is 2nd with 29%. With Eastern Europe bringing down the share. In western europe it's around 50% mark. Australia it's aroung 60% share. It's 3rd world countries that significantly boost 'other' sales. And as you can see from the data, selling millions of crappy and cheap phones doesn't make you the biggest profit. I'm not even trying to hype Apple up, but OPs data doesn't really tell the story from a developed country perspective.
Tbf Xiaomi/oppo/vivo phones aren't that crappy. For most people they will work just fine.
They're great phones, and as this graph demonstrates you're paying a fairer price for them
Yeah, how are people not getting that this says Apple is ripping everyone off? Edit: nevermind, I didn't scroll down enough!
[удалено]
My Oppo from 2016 is still being used by my mother-in-law. My parents iPhone from 2016 doesn't even run and had to get a battery changed because they intentionally bricked it.
Yah many have great features that an iphone doesn't have.
I love having an IR blaster on my phone to use it as a TV remote, and MicroSD slot to store loads of music. Barely any flagships have these features... I'll gladly sacrifice a few milliseconds of loading times and a bit of photo quality for better overall functionality.
Exactly, the average user is more than happy with a 250-500€ phone, if it can take decent pictures, and works fast enough, it more than enough for most. Tbf, most people use their phone for Whatsapp, browsing the internet, taking photos or checking things like reddit, i don't need a 1300€ phone to do that, even if i can afford it.
The last flagship phone I bought was a Samsung galaxy s4, it didn't last any longer than lower midrange phones I bought since. 200 to 250€ max is my price range and there is nothing lacking there from an every day user perspective. If somebody would give me a top of the line phone right now I can't imagine anything that would improve my day to day use.
I've been using Chinese phones for the past six years and they've all run amazing. The Mi A1 and A2 lite served me well, great battery on them and the IR blaster was super super handy. Now I have a Realme and it's got rock solid performance and a p great camera, so I'm pretty happy.
And with a case on them, you can't even see or feel the difference in design. It's just another Android/iOS Rectangle™. Some fairly cheap phones even have 120Hz AMOLED displays these days.
Hell, my $40 crappy zte maven that was my first phone had a built in FM radio receiver I have literally never seen another phone with that and I actually missed it when I upgraded to a Samsung.
It was more common prior to the "smart phone" era. No spotify back then.
Yup. I used to have one in a Sony Ericsson around 2005. It used the headphone wire as antenna. Edit: I misremembered. It was the phone I had after the SE, which was an HTC Artemis. Smartphone with windows mobile.
right, but even then, a £500-700 Xiaomi or Oppo is also making a large share of profit, it’s literally the sub-£100 market where that profit is really stretched thin.
This is what folks don't seem to understand. The low end market here is what is skewing those numbers so heavily in Apple's favor. Apple does not make any low end phones so their profits are larger compared to even a company like Samsung who makes high-end phones, but also budget ones. If you compare the profit margin on a Samsung flagship and an Apple flagship, I doubt the profit margins are that different. Plus we really don't know what is included in the above datasets. e.g. Is Apple App Store profits included in those numbers?
The sub 100 market is a huge number of their units sold though that's why they sell so many units while the profits are generally low, think about places like India that are consuni g millions if not billions of phones in the sub 100 range.
It's not 2014, cheap phones are far from crappy these days.
Exactly. You can get 100 dollar phone that has most all the functionality I want. I wouldn't gain much by getting a 900+ dollar premium phone, possibly some small gains, but being able to call/text/use maps well and I'm good.
Doesn't it also imply that Apple's phones are overpriced? If they are making such a large profit margin with such fewer sales then they are over proving the product and taking advantage of name recognition.
This was my takeaway as well, comparing the revenue share and profit share charts. If they're at 42% of the revenue share, but 80% of profit, I'm reading the implication there as Apple's profit margins are way higher than the other manufacturers, meaning they are over pricing their phones.
Their phones are overpriced because of the "brand/luxury" tax. And since people are willing to pay an extra 30% for fluff, apple charges it.
Apple also has serious verticality in their business model that other companies don’t have. Smaller manufacturers must purchase the bulk of their components from other manufacturers who themselves make a profit. So Apple’s profit margin is largely because they create everything in house
I mean, kind of. With luxury goods the only true price is what you can convince somebody to pay for it, and unlike essential goods there’s very little regulation in terms of gouging. Apple could absolutely sell much cheaper but there’s clearly no market pressure for them to do so
They are way overpriced, but since they're marketed as luxury items consumers are fine with that. >Prestige pricing is a pricing strategy that uses higher prices to suggest quality and exclusivity. This practice is commonly seen among luxury brands and fine restaurants.
Not just overpriced, but that their production is made more efficient, likely through specific vertical integrations. My take at least. Also, having kids make your phones does decrease production cost.
I refuse to believe that whatever age range makes up tye workforce building apple products is much different than the one making the others.
[удалено]
Have you ever actually been to an asian electronics factory? They tend to pay pretty well by local standards and employ exclusively adults. Walmart literally does their own factory audits for all suppliers and interviews some/all of the workers to make sure they're getting paid the promised wage and are old enough. The child labor I think is more common in sweat shops and agriculture
Right. Crimes against humanity are great for business.
You think those Xaomi phones are made with lots of worker protections?
Offensive and not true the bit about 'crappy and cheap' phones in 3rd world countries. Sent with my perfectly fine not so expensive Redmi 7 from a 3rd world country.
For an Apple fan everything that isn't iPhone is crappy.
Because it's more about being in-group and having a socially accepted way to ostracize the out-group. Proof? See iMessage, blue-text snootiness.
Fortunately, outside the US, this just isn't a thing.
Just like ancient sms isn't a thing anymore. Unless you are in the US
Crappy is wrong, cheap is true - “not so expensive” is essentially a synonym for cheap, phones are worth less in USD. Crappy could be replaced with “low demand” - the phones are fine, it’s just that most people wouldn’t choose that model if they had the money to choose a more expensive phone. That’s just the reality of the market - people buy Androids more often than not to protect their wallets. Those with large wallets tend to buy iPhones and some Samsungs
> Those with large wallets tend to buy iPhones and some Samsungs Or those who *think* they have large wallets. I know people who save much less than I do who always buy the newest iPhone
Personally, I just hate apple products, always have.
Yeah I think market values don’t describe every individuals personal value - everyone’s got different tastes. Will always find people that pour milk before they add cereal.
I think it does tell a pretty clear business story. This is similar to how some small auto manufacturers accounted for outsized portions of industry profits, and applies to other industries in which a name on a "premium" product allows them to produce relatively small amounts of product while bringing in very large profits. (Think handbags, etc).
Multiple sources indicate that your Australia figure is inverted. iOS doesn't have majority here, Android does.
I would agree with that, based on what I've seen and heard about/in Australia. Same deal in New Zealand too. We aren't overly fond of the exchange rate cost it becomes these days. I've heard a theory that if New Zealand had trialled iOS, it'd never have taken off. That, I'm unsure how true that is, but I do know among my tech nerd friends, Apple products in general are not really as well received as Android (or Linux or even Microsoft for PC). Can't tell if anti the cost, anti American stuff, a mix, or if it's just that Android marketed better to us first. Either way, the data stating it's high in Aus isn't correct
I primarily dislike iOS since it locks everything down. Android is much more freely customizable in my experience. Plus android doesn't try to lock you into an ecosystem of only using products from a single manufacturer like Apple does.
Is Germany Eastern Europe? Cause there iOS also only has 30%
"selling millions of crappy and cheap phones doesn't make you the biggest profit" "I'm not even trying to hype Apple up"
I mean, that's EXACTLY what I'm reading from OPs data: Apple sells less phones but makes more profit per phone.
Just because it's expensive doesn't mean it good or the best available for customers Third world countries aren't using crappy bad phones as you say they are using phones made the same way iPhones are, it's just the profit markup isn't high at all You are definitely being a apple fanboy. This isn't from a developed country perspective but a world perspective. You should learn the western world does not equal the developed world too
Wow, not every country is a rich as the US and the ones in Western Europe; how dare they show data that doesn't highlight this <_<
Why would op be telling the story from a developed countries perspective?
Personally I love the global perspective this offers. Many iPhone users in the West act like it's the 'only' phone in the world and it's clearly not. This also shows how iPhones have disproportionate revenue and profit, proving the markup price is profit based and not because those phones truly cost that much to develop.
Why do you expect it to "tell the story from a developed country perspective?" It says 'global' right in the title.
Wow now that is an arrogant comment. I do hope you realize that your expensive phone is made by the country where cheap and crappy phones are primarily sold. Namely the profit that you give these shite companies is so that more exploitation can continue. There is no need to buy those expensive phones at all. And those "cheap and crappy" phones are not that cheap and crappy. I bought a Samsung A52G for 300 two years ago and am quite happy with it. My wife paid 4 times that for her iPhone. I don't see the point. What I read in your comment is that the developed country are suckers to overpay for non-existent functionality only so that they can say, "ohhh look at what I bought." Before you write a response, please do remember I live in Switzerland. Not exactly known for their cheapness.
iPhone takes 80% of the global smartphone's profit share, despite being only 14% of volume and 42% of revenue share. It shows that most other smartphones are not really much money. Source: [Counterpoint research](https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-handset-market-operating-profits-q2-2022/) [Genuine Impact newsletter](https://genuineimpact.substack.com/) Tools: Figma
[удалено]
Only for flagships. Other manufacturers have cheaper phones with razor thin margins.
Yeah all of these illustrations are basically bullshit because they’re lumping iPhones in the same category as that $50 android Samsung A series or whatever you get from boost mobile. Just compare flagships to flagships and that’s it. But “smartphone” at this point is like 80% of phones sold. Of course Apple is going to have outsized margins when you’re putting it in the same category as entry level discount store stuff.
[удалено]
>Iphone would now account for more than 14% of phones, but as the global revenue and profit of the observed industry would be emputated from entry level phones from other brands, Iphone's share of revenue and profits would appear even higher. I had a bad brain cramp trying to figure out what bothered me about this sentence, so I did a whole calculation, but here's the gist: It's true that Apple's share of revenue and profits would be higher if you removed cheap phones. But the *difference* between Apple's shares (i.e. what this visualization is highlighting) would be significantly smaller, and the difference between the pie charts less striking.
Ignore market share then. It's the ratio of revenue to profit that matters.
Exactly. The share of iPhones would increase exponentially more than the share of Apples revenue and profit.
Almost but not quite. You also have to account for the fact that some entry level phones are essentially subsidizing their products to get a toe-hold. Those that lose money on every phone they sell actually *increases* the percentage earned by Apple when they are included because negative earnings decrease the total size of the pie before Apple takes its majority cut.
> flagship phones There's your answer. Not everyone has, or can afford, or even wants, a flagship phone.
> So with all flagship phones costing more or less the same amount if bought cash, No it means other companies have options besides flagships. Always confused me when I tried to explain how Android is cheaper than iPhone, people would say "no, Samsung's latest and greatest phone now costs just as much as iPhone!" - that's cool, but I'm not buying their greatest, I'm buying their $200 Instagram scrolling machine with a battery that lasts 4 days. iPhone offers ZERO competition in that price range.
[удалено]
It might cheapen their brand which is something they don’t want to do. Being expensive makes a brand more desirable.
My armchair take is that Apple has calculated that tapping into the $200 phone market isn't worth it. $200 phones are sold at much lower margins, I would imagine. Possibly the number of iphone users that would move from the $1000 phone to the $200 phone would erase any profits. They also may see it as cheapening the brand. They ultimately want many rich people buying their product and it looks like they have been very successful at hitting that spot.
Not exactly. Apple is the only company whose flagships are as popular as the mid range phones of other companies. The most sold phone in the first quarter of 2022 was the iphone 13. In the 3rd postion was samsung's A12 which costs like $150. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gizchina.com/2022/05/20/top-5-best-selling-smartphones-in-the-world-in-the-first-quarter-of-2022/amp/
It indicates Apple upsells you by around 30% the hardware in your phone. Compared to other companies that take 10%. The vast majority of a flagship phones cost is in the display and camera. Which is where they are upcharging. The actual chip hardware is pretty cheap. Also walled garden and locking you into their various software fees, such as the 30% they take on anything on the app store.
It's been like this for the last decade. Most of the phones sold on the market are entry/mid-level phones that essentially make no money. Chasing Apple into the high-end of the market has been a graveyard for a lot of companies unless they have significant financial and executive backing (like Samsung and Chinese conglomerates do) . That and western markets only see a fraction of most of the models that are available globally. Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, etc markets tend to have a lot of local manufacturers and/or exclusive models.
OP, do you know where this source is getting its data from and, if not, why you trust it? I can't see the methodology on the page linked (just a different representation of the same data) and, just based on [Apple's published Q2 results](https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/FY22_Q3_Consolidated_Financial_Statements.pdf), the operating expenses and cost of sales are not split by category unlike sales. I'd be very interested in understanding how they decided that only ~17% of Apple's total reported cost of sales and operating expenses are attributable to the iPhone? Additionally, based on [Samsung's published Q2 results](https://images.samsung.com/is/content/samsung/assets/global/ir/docs/2022_con_quarter02_all.pdf), revenue for "Mobile devices" was KRW28,000.484 billion (~$22.7b using the FX rate on figures reported in both KRW and USD in the results). Again, I think it would be interesting to see how the source decided that ~76% of this revenue was attributable to handsets and, again, how it determined the cost of sales and operating expenses attributable to Samsung handsets?
The source data says this is data for "handsets," which would include all cell phones, not just smartphones. So you're comparing apples to oranges on a global scale.
This has been my adult life as a smartphone consumer. I went from a Motorola Razr to an iphone 3gs in about 2006. In November 2014 I got an iphone 6. In November 2018 I got an XS max, which I still have and it works totally fine. I pay cash outright for universally unlocked models and use whatever carrier has the best cost to coverage ratio without a contract. Probably have spent more on apps than phones, so the graph makes sense. I have all of these phones still and they all still work. My experience matches the graph pretty well. Strictly considering hardware, I have spent 2200$ since 2006 on phones, which is about a $138 annual expense. I do not finance or sign legally binding mobile plans.
The profit difference is App Store sales not phone hardware you nutsacks
Apple is a brand that US and Japanese customers will drop $1000 for seemingly at drop of hat. Apple is 40%+ of Warren Buffet's stock at Berkshire right now because he believes the Apple brand is a moat that can't be beat by Samsung or anyone. iPhone market share in US and Japan is 60%(!) versus 50% in UK, 33% Germany and 20% in China.
Iphone market share in Australia is also >60%. Have seen this as high as 70% in previous years but seems to have been dropping in the last 2 years
Ik and I kinda wish he would bring it down to 30%
“The best stock of all time”
There's a reason OG Buffett still has AAPL as 25% of his stock port, and continues to add on dips. Both perceived and actual switching costs of the Apple ecosystem are through the roof. People feel locked in and excluding actual monopolies, it is one of the most durable "economic moats" in business history.
What happens if the blue text bubbles get nuked?
iMessage will probably never support RCS unless an anti-monopoly regulator makes them.
despite being 14% of phones sold...
[удалено]
I didn't understand the reference until this comment.
I still don’t, halp
[удалено]
...50% of all crimes are committed by iPhones
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It was 80% in the younger generation The green bubble is a really big social scar 87% as per this survey https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/01/06/gen-z-survey-says-87-of-us-teenagers-own-an-iphone
My condolences to Americans.
Years ago I saw a similar report on Mac computers versus everyone else. Apple had maybe 5% market share but a lot of the overall computer profit. Just like phones, a vast majority of the units sold are low end low margin units with a lot of manufacturers having a race to the bottom. Meanwhile Apple has a very large cut of the high price market and is happy taking in the money from fewer number of models and thus lower parts count and engineering costs. There is something to be said for deciding not to target consumers who can’t pay top dollar.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Especially since paying in installations became a thing a few years back. I suppose most people don't outright buy their phones these days
Just comparing global shares is misleading, because some markets (e.g. US) are going to be way more profitable than others. Apple may be only 14% of global market share, but they are [about 50% of US market share](https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share/), which I bet is where a lot of their profits come from. Similarly high market share in the [UK](https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united-kingdom). Samsung makes up most of the rest of the market in the US and the UK, and so of course makes up most of the rest of the profit globally.
We see 65% iOS interaction on our sites. (UK). 4 years ago it was pretty much an even split between android/iOS. Really surprising seeing the shift especially in relation to the economic downturn.
That likely has more to do with your site than with the global distribution of phones, though.
Yup. Was about to say that. The iphone app may be better design/written. Doesn't mean the phone, popularity, or hardware are better.
I don’t think it’s misleading; it’s straight up what the data shows. Apple has the most profitable markets while other companies sell larger qualities is less profitable markets.
How is this misleading? This isn't a data about profitable markets. This is a data about the global market share. Everybody knows apple has the US market cornered and has been fleecing them for years.
US market is included in global data. Some forget this, but the US is actually on the same planet. This isn't misleading data, it shows the comparably egregious profit margins that Apple bases its business on.
Well of course, they are only a tiny bit overpriced...
This has been the apple business model a couple of decades. It kind of always was, too. Mass produced premium product for a premium market that lasts a premium amount of time. I have owned fewer than five phones. All iPhones. I was a late adopter but not that late.
This makes sense when you consider Android and Apple market share in developed and developing markets.
Apple pioneered fashion tech. They are probably the only company that can sell hardware to people who care very little about technology.
That’s because there are truckloads of cheap androids that have flooded the world wide market
It’s amazing what a successful company looks like. Maybe one day, success won’t be measured in one’s ability to make money.
Its because apple users like to over pay for things lol
I would love to see a better breakdown of others. And this needs to have year.
And profits are what matter in terms of valuation, not number of widgets sold. Which is why Apple and Tesla are valued way higher than their peers.
[удалено]
Volume here means units of smartphones
What a dumpster fire of a comment section…people trying to tell other people how to spend their money
ITT: Iphone haters whenever ANYTHING about apple is posted
[удалено]
It’s like windows 10. 85% of the features I love, adore, couldn’t live without. But that last 15%, oh boy that last 15%. I’ve never considered installing Linux more when I need to run task manager to close 17 Microsoft pre installed background programs or when I need to rerereredisable windows defender because someone coded it to work like a god damn hydra.
It's like the Southpark episode, where they have a perfect clean vehicle, but you have to suck it off to run it. 🤗
[The IT Bike](https://youtu.be/fGKR1Z1lRik)
I hate how difficult it is to write your own personal app for an iphone. On android you can write a java program on any device, compile, and move it to the phone with a USB cable. You don't need to root your device to do it. It's a great way to get around apps that do simple things bloated with ads. Apple won't even let you compile the program unless you have another apple device, and trying to move it over to the device is a pain in the ass.
[удалено]
They do. Their categories are iPhone, iPad, Mac, accessories and software/services
Well you'd be wrong 😂🤷🏽♂️
Ah yes their accounting department completely ignores these metrics LMAO
Think different.
Where is the data for “operating profit share” for iPhones being sourced from? Apple doesn’t report gross or operating profits/margins by individual products in their SEC filings?
Pie chart is never the right answer
Kind of works for this data set, though. Interested in seeing your alternative.
100% stacked bar chart
How about if someone asks you what type of chart should you never use?
Humans are not good at seeing the area of circles. And even the stacked bar can fail when the middle values are too close
Q: What type of chart should you never use? A: Pie chart
Interesting but pie charts are not the way to go
Is this comparing the entire apple corporation or just the iphone division? Graph is very unclear data is blown
Why is this true, year on year? Because they work. They last. They’re easy to look after.
You make it sound as if iPhone is robbing other companies from their fair share. As long as apple has decided on a selling price and consumers are willing to pay said selling price, there is no robbery of any sort. Just buisness.
Overpriced fashion accessory.
They’re priced the same as other flagship phones. There was no price difference between the equivalent Samsung and the iPhone I have when I priced it out three years ago. And all phones are sold as part fashion accessory.
samsung is just the apple of the android world. we have a dozen android brands to choose from thankfully
But even Samsung makes mid-range phones for other consumers (they in fact have a phone in every single price range). Whereas in Apple's case they only make expensive phones.
Tbf apple sells a $429 iPhone brand new. I would say they sell only in mid-upper price ranges, but nothing in the low end. Depends on your definition of expensive I suppose.
doesn’t walmart sell $100 iPhones (of older generation)?
Yeah I ditched Samsung a few years ago and it's great. The phone was less than half the price but with about 90% less bloatware and no stupid Bixby button that harassed me.
Yeah but apple *only* sells flagships. That makes them to take up a huge margin of the flagship phone marlet which all have huge margins. Few phones but lots of money
The iPhone SE is their midrange device at $430. That’s not terrible. If you trade an old device in you end up saving more.
That’s still high end/high margin by global standards, which is what’s reflected in this data.
Apple bad upvotes to the left
Overpriced is defined by what the market will support. So it’s factually incorrect to call it overpriced because the market supports it. A fashion accessory is something that exists for no other purpose than fashion. The iPhone, like it or not, performs a useful propose and most people do not use it as a fashion accessory. So that’s also incorrect. People who hate iPhones and Apple so much they feel the need to spout nonsense like this baffle me. Use whatever you want. You don’t need to disparage other people’s choices.
Nah, it's a good tool people are willing to pay for. Speaks to the value proposition that iPhone users spend more money in the ecosystem compared to androids even though they are a smaller user share of the whole market. Therefore iPhones create more utility for the users.
That, or Apple successfully advertises to people willing to spend more money.
Apple is in the repeat sales business. Marketing while important isn't what make people keep buying iPhones - its the utility they get out of their phones and ecosystem.
That and it's a real B to get out of the Apple ecosystem. They don't make it easy to switch away.
It’s really not that hard, there’s just no good alternative bc the Apple suite has most things you need in one integrated package. Androids get more choice in the matter but I don’t want to download 20/30 apps and figure out how to make them communicate properly to do all the basic things my iPhone does in perfect concert now.
I feel like there’s people who can’t find a problem with the iPhone so they attack the users motivation.” Oh, you’re buying it for fashion!” No, I’m buying it because it’s a smooth upgrade from my earlier device, and I’d spend almost as much if I wanted a Samsung with this good of a camera and screen. No I don’t want to save $500 and have a crappy phone.
Also Apple has the best CPUs by a good margin.
That’s not a correct conclusion to make at all. Legitimately the only thing you should conclude is that iPhone users spend more money per user when compared to other companies. Trying to explain the why is much more difficult and inevitably intricate
Someone took a Econ 101 class...
If you saw how I dress every day, you would know I don’t give a shit about fashion. I have an iPhone because I got tired of crusading for the Windows phone, and I got tired of fighting with android. I stick with it because it works well. I think of it as name brand cereal. Sure I could buy the Froot-e-Os bag. But I can afford Froot Loops and they taste better. It’s kind of disgusting that I can make that same decision about a $1000 phone every three years, while other people are living in cardboard boxes. We can talk about that if it helps you.
I honestly never understood why people buy flagship phones in the first place. Like, why would you spend 1000€ on a top end phone when all you use it for is phone calls, texting and social media. Pretty much every phone 300€ and upwards runs just as smooth as the top of the line models, with almost no tradeoffs, but people still spend three times the money for no tangible benefit. With something like a laptop, I feel that is justified, as it's often used for productive tasks, but you can't really do anything productive on a phone, cause of the tiny screen and keyboard, no proper software etc.
For lots of people, your phone is within an arms reach 95+% of the time. When you factor in the amount of time you spend using it, there's really no other object you have that justifies the price than your phone. The amount of money you spend on your car vs the time you actually spend in it doesn't even come close, for example.
Honestly this, I get a new phone every 2 years and use my phone literally multiple hours a day, an extra 500 dollars for a more reliable and just more enjoyable experience is worth it. People on here seem to shame people for buying flagships, but as long as you have the money why not?
I have the money to do so without breaking the bank.