What is APPLE planning?

Here's an amazing statistic... 4.2% of the market but 52% of the profit

Apple is estimated to have taken in 52 percent of the handset industry's operating profits last quarter, despite only having a 4.2 percent global handset market share.

Analyst T. Michael Walkley with Canaccord Genuity issued a note to investors on Friday in which he estimated Apple took more than half of the industry's operating profits in the third quarter of calendar 2011. That's a 5 percent increase from the third quarter of 2010, when Apple's share of industry operating profits was 47 percent.

In fact, Apple's growth in profit share came even as Apple lost market share. The iPhone dipped from a 5.4 percent market share to its current 4.2 percent as Samsung is estimated to have led the industry in smartphone shipments for the quarter, though its profits shrank.

Calling it an "epic reversal of fortunes," Canaccord noted that in 2007, Nokia had 67 percent of operating profits in the industry, while Apple and its iPhone represented just 4 percent. Now, with more than half of the industry's profits, Apple has switched places with Nokia, which accounts for just 4 percent of operating profits.

Apple's chief rival in the mobile industry is Samsung, which Walkley said has scale advantages and the leading share of Android devices. Together, Apple and Samsung are said to have represented 81 percent of the handset industry's operating profits last quarter.

Walkley said he has conducted "channel checks" that show strong demand not only for Apple's new iPhone 4S, but also for the lower-priced iPhone 4 and iPhone 3GS models. Accordingly, he has increased his projected iPhone sales for the December quarter to 29 million, up from 27 million.
 
iPhone 4S now No.1 smartphone at top-3 U.S. carriers, iPhone 4 still hot

Apple looks to be following up its surprising miss in the September quarter with a huge holiday quarter for its popular iPhone line. According to Canaccord Genuity’s checks, Apple’s iPhone 4S was the best-selling smartphone in October for Verizon Wireless, AT&T and Sprint despite only being available for half of the month. Apple’s previous-generation smartphone, the iPhone 4, was also found to be among the three top-selling smartphones at each of the country’s top-3 carriers. Read on for more.

“Our October checks indicated the iPhone 4S was the top selling model at AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon with the iPhone 4, now $100, a top 3 selling model at each of those channels,” Canaccord analyst Mike Walkley wrote in a research note on Friday. He continued, suggesting that the December quarter will likely see record iPhone sales.

Walkley increased his fourth-quarter (Apple’s first fiscal quarter of 2012) iPhone sales estimate to 29 million units from his earlier estimate of 27 million. The analyst also increased his price target on shares of Apple stock to $560 from $545, reiterating a Buy rating.

Apple announced recently that it sold more than 4 million iPhone 4S handsets across seven launch markets during the phone’s debut weekend. Sprint said the iPhone launch gave the carrier its “best ever day of sales,” and AT&T activated more than 1 million iPhone 4S handsets during the device’s first week of availability.

http://www.bgr.com/2011/11/04/iphon...one-at-top-3-u-s-carriers-iphone-4-still-hot/
 

So? Doesn't change the fact that the magazine is corrupt.

On the iPhone 4s antenna... Is it better? Sure. Will it make a different for the vast majority of iPhone 4 users? No. CR backed themselves into a corner by exacerbating and amplifying a problem that was meaningless to 97% of iPhone 4 users. With the 4s, CR found a way to un-back themselves out of the corner.

I never trusted CR for automotive reviews and was frequently annoyed how their political biases would often taint certain reports.
 
CR has had a consistent bias in automotive reviews - probably because of Nader's early and continued influence.

CR plays numerous "tricks" without explanation.

http://www.allpar.com/cr.html

I've seen them frequently review and compare products where they choose various optional configurations with no real justification.

http://www.autospies.com/news/Should-You-Trust-Consumer-Reports-18905/

http://junksciencearchive.com/consumer/consumer_about.html

Make no mistake, CR is a political advocacy group.

What have others said about Consumer Reports?

The Society of Toxicology says:

"We believe that the [Consumers Union report's conclusions] concerning the dangers of pesticides in food are not credible and are unnecessrily alarmist."

Source: Letter from the SOT to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 8, 1999

Science journalist Michael Fumento says:

"When it comes to testing dishwashers, VCRs, and TVs, Consumer Reports has established a reputation for fairness and impartiality that has made it one of the most trusted consumer sources in the United States. Unfortunately, any month's issue that discusses a subject with an environmentalist angle should be renamed "Consumer Distorts."

Source: "Scary baby bottle blather", Washington Times, May 16, 1999

Former Consumer Reports reporter Larry Katzenstein says:

"...20/20 managed to overlook the real story: the transmogrification of [Consumers Union] over the past 10 years from an organization that helped to educate the public about what was truly risky and what wasn't...to a group determined to scare people about risks that in reality pose negligible or nonexistent dangers.

Source: Letter from Larry Katzenstein to Brian Ross, investigative reporter for ABC's 20/20, April 20, 1999

Media watchdog Brill's Content says:

When it comes to deciding which products and services to buy, there's no more trusted source of information than this 63-year-old magazine. But the self proclaimed bastion of unbiased testing may not be as fair or conflict-free as it claims.

Source: Brill's Content, "Testing Consumer Reports," September 1999

The American Council on Science and Health says:

We at the American Council on Science and Health believe your editorial choices are unnecessarily alarmist. By focusing on hypothetical or negligible risks, like the phthalate and pesticide issues, Consumer Reports causes its readers to lose their health and safety perspectives.

Source: Letter from the American Council on Science and Health to Consumer Reports, July 20, 1999
 
CR has had a consistent bias in automotive reviews - probably because of Nader's early and continued influence.

CR plays numerous "tricks" without explanation.

http://www.allpar.com/cr.html

I've seen them frequently review and compare products where they choose various optional configurations with no real justification.

http://www.autospies.com/news/Should-You-Trust-Consumer-Reports-18905/

http://junksciencearchive.com/consumer/consumer_about.html

Make no mistake, CR is a political advocacy group.

What have others said about Consumer Reports?

The Society of Toxicology says:

"We believe that the [Consumers Union report's conclusions] concerning the dangers of pesticides in food are not credible and are unnecessrily alarmist."

Source: Letter from the SOT to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 8, 1999

Science journalist Michael Fumento says:

"When it comes to testing dishwashers, VCRs, and TVs, Consumer Reports has established a reputation for fairness and impartiality that has made it one of the most trusted consumer sources in the United States. Unfortunately, any month's issue that discusses a subject with an environmentalist angle should be renamed "Consumer Distorts."

Source: "Scary baby bottle blather", Washington Times, May 16, 1999

Former Consumer Reports reporter Larry Katzenstein says:

"...20/20 managed to overlook the real story: the transmogrification of [Consumers Union] over the past 10 years from an organization that helped to educate the public about what was truly risky and what wasn't...to a group determined to scare people about risks that in reality pose negligible or nonexistent dangers.

Source: Letter from Larry Katzenstein to Brian Ross, investigative reporter for ABC's 20/20, April 20, 1999

Media watchdog Brill's Content says:

When it comes to deciding which products and services to buy, there's no more trusted source of information than this 63-year-old magazine. But the self proclaimed bastion of unbiased testing may not be as fair or conflict-free as it claims.

Source: Brill's Content, "Testing Consumer Reports," September 1999

The American Council on Science and Health says:

We at the American Council on Science and Health believe your editorial choices are unnecessarily alarmist. By focusing on hypothetical or negligible risks, like the phthalate and pesticide issues, Consumer Reports causes its readers to lose their health and safety perspectives.

Source: Letter from the American Council on Science and Health to Consumer Reports, July 20, 1999

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think any of this information is credible? Lets take the American Council on Science and Health or http://junksciencearchive.com/consumer/consumer_about.html for instance. What made you decide these are good sources to follow?
 
I just posted a few items out of many and I didn't base my opinions on any one link or site. The "Consumer Distorts" text I posted because it had a number of other people who also felt CR had problems.

Hey, it's my opinion that I don't trust CR and find them to be corrupt. This isn't a court of law. I just don't like their tactics. People can do their own searches and form their own opinions.

The nonsense they played with the iPhone 4 was only the latest example.

This is getting way off-topic.
 
Last edited:
Make no mistake, CR is a political advocacy group.

I don't dispute that. However, if they're testing a toaster it doesn't really matter if their politics are left, right, or center. If the toaster doesn't get my bread golden brown, I want to know about it.

Many of the sources you cited have their own agendas that may be at odds with CR, so of course their going to publish hit-pieces.

This all jibes with your attack on them for calling out the iPhone 4's antenna deficiency. You have your agenda just as CR has theirs. (And I mine, I will confess.)

The bottom line is that there was a problem with the iPhone 4 antenna. If there wasn't, then why did Apple fix it in the iPhone 4S? Why not just use the same antenna again, if it worked so well?
 
Last edited:
I still don't get why NetViper would title this thread "What is Apple planning?" when all he seems to post is negative articles regarding Apple & argue with those who state otherwise.
 
I still don't get why NetViper would title this thread "What is Apple planning?" when all he seems to post is negative articles regarding Apple & argue with those who state otherwise.

Funny how you never had a problem with it until I asked why you were on prime when all you do is post about Apple and argue with anyone who doesn't agree with your opinions on their products.

So you get a NSX yet?
 
is the battery issue specifically on i4s? My wifes iphone 4 is fine. She still had 60% after work - though she had said the battery wasnt lasting as long as it used to, but that was before iOs 5.
 
Funny how you never had a problem with it until I asked why you were on prime when all you do is post about Apple and argue with anyone who doesn't agree with your opinions on their products.

So you get a NSX yet?
I didn't realize how insecure you were and that every time anyone proves you wrong regarding Apple, you immediately throw out insults. I guess you also don't like anyone else posting up news regarding Apple, unless its yourself because you seem to be obsessed with posting negative info regarding the company.

Oh and I haven't picked up an NSX yet, gonna take my time and find the right one for me. Does that bother you?
 
I didn't realize how insecure you were and that every time anyone proves you wrong regarding Apple, you immediately throw out insults. I guess you also don't like anyone else posting up news regarding Apple, unless its yourself because you seem to be obsessed with posting negative info regarding the company.

Oh and I haven't picked up an NSX yet, gonna take my time and find the right one for me. Does that bother you?

Sensitive are we?

Here is some positive Apple news.

http://www.bgr.com/2011/11/14/aging-iphone-4-iphone-3gs-still-best-selling-phones-in-q3/

And nothing like a an iPhone 5 rumor and mini-ipad..

http://www.bgr.com/2011/11/14/lg-may-be-building-displays-for-4-inch-iphone-5-7-35-inch-ipad/

Too bad that all 7" tablets are DOA according to steve.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top