So yes. Now we have Apple's latest July-Sept Quarter, ie calendar quarter Q3 (Apple has different fiscal quarters, we use standardized calendar quarters on this blog). And as this blog is only interested in mobile phones and thus, smartphones, I won't look at other aspects of Apple's great businesses than the iPhone smartphone business.
And that is once again reporting growth. Year-on-year growth level of 26% and Quarterly growth vs 3 months ago of 8%. Apple is holding steady in its market share at 13.6% (preliminary). The iPhone business is profitable, they have now split their product line into a premium product and (nominally) discount product. All is generally pretty good. Next quarter will have the full sales quarter for the new iPhones, 5S and 5C, and that will definitely help Apple to record Christmas sales in the smartphone business and new record unit sales levels. But what of market share?
Apple's iPhone market share has indeed peaked. It is now almost impossible for Apple to be able to report growing iPhone market share annually for 2013, compared to 2012. It will be the first year that iPhone did not add market share on an annual basis. I predicted this would happen, I was off by the timing (but nobody could foresee that Nokia's CEO would be given a bonus for wrecking his handset business). But we've been monitoring the developments of the iPhone market share and here is an interesting view for you to consider. Because Apple only releases a new iPhone/iPhones once per year, it has a peculiar sales pattern of strongly seasonal sales. So comparing Quarter-to-Quarter would give a see-saw effect, some months up, other months down, with difficult-to-see patterns. But we have a good statistical tool for that. Lets look at the last 4 quarters (last 12 months) moving average. Now it gets very interesting. Look at iPhone market share development as an averagef of the latest 4 quarters ending:
MOVING AVERAGE iPHONE MARKET SHARE
Latest 4 quarters ending Q4 2009 - 14.0%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q1 2010 - 15.3%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q2 2010 - 15.8%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q3 2010 - 15.9%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q4 2010 - 15.9%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q1 2011 - 16.5%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q2 2011 - 17.8%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q3 2011 - 16.9%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q4 2011 - 18.7%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q1 2012 - 20.1%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q2 2012 - 19.6%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q3 2012 - 20.0%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q4 2012 - 19.6%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q1 2013 - 18.1%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q2 2013 - 17.2%
Latest 4 quarters ending Q3 2013 - 16.6%
Source: Apple quarterly results
The above data may be freely shared
The iPhone 12 month moving average has fallen now for 5 quarters in a row. It is now indisputable that there has been a clear peak in year 2012 and the moving average is down over 3 points of market share (one seventh of its size) from the peak it held last year. It would take Apple a Herculean sales effort for Christmas - of about 91 million unit sales (and quarterly market share of 29% when Apple has never had a quarterly market share better than 24% before) to bring Apple to 'level' in market share compared to last year. I am expecting Apple Q4 Christmas Quarter to have something like 65 million iPhone sales - which would be 'normal' growth vs last year and produce record performance at Apple - and result in Apple's full year 2013 market share to be about 17% to 18%.
Now, what Apple needs to do, if it wants to reverse the decline in market share - is to lower the price of its discount product, the iPhone 5C. Of course Apple doesn't care about my views or about market share, they want profit share and pursuing that strategy no doubt is best for Apple investors - but this means that you should not expect iPhone market share to grow anymore. It has peaked and will now settle into that roughly 1 in 6 smartphones sold level (And roughly 1 in 12 total handsets sold which is well in line with historical Macintosh PC sales...)
And very much worth noting is that Apple regularly gets 60-70% of total operational profits from the whole mobile handset business worldwide. This is likely to grow as Samsung, much more than Apple, feels the pressure from Chinese ultra cheap smartphones.
Posted by: Lou Mannheim | October 29, 2013 at 04:15 PM
I keep begging that apple will continue with he current strategy, everyone, EVERYONE was soo wrong about their first weekend sales and numbers that I keep thinking to myself, thanks good they don't listen to anyone, I don't want to own a cheap plastic phone that 6 months down the road is obsolete, I want 64 bit power and soon, world class computer power apps in my computer in my pocket, the iPhone 5s, yes, forget the smart phone term ... this is a small computer that can be used to make phone calls, Samsung and Co are 2 generations behind and when they catch up, their product will last 6 months before becoming obsolete, the beauty of Apple is that hardware last you a year longer than Samsung effectively in the long term making it a cheaper investment.
Posted by: Gonzalo | October 29, 2013 at 05:09 PM
I think one factor many are overlooking is that this time all markets, including China, offered the iPhone 5s simultaneously. This means the initial sales numbers should be higher than in the past, given the wider market offering. Will this be reflected in weaker sales during the following period (since buyers in some markets had to wait to put their hands on the new iPhone)?
We'll see...
Posted by: Earendil Star | October 29, 2013 at 09:53 PM
Wanna bet that the resident Apple-tards will dismiss these numbers as insignificant again?
Now that market share has peaked it's only a matter of time that sales numbers will peak, too, with all the high end markets nearing saturation.
And what then...?
@Gonzalo:
Please post your retarded Apple advertisement elsewhere.
Posted by: RottenApple | October 29, 2013 at 10:08 PM
@ RottenApple
Then we ask Mercedes Benz, Porsche, BMW, Harley Davidson, Rolex and many more who care little about market share but care about quality, durability and value. If you care about market share keep drinking Coke and eating hamburgers, i rater drink wine.
Nt everyone considers market share a good measure and plenty of companies that create value don't do it vi market share. Now if one's opinion is so offensive to you it means that anything that is not market share related goes well beyond what you understand about a product and its capabilities.
If you can't discern between and obsolete 32 bit smart phone and a 64 bit pocket computer it's fine with me , not everyone digs deep into technology before commenting, but what i sad is that in a blog like this one you can not control yourself and use a good argument but resort to insult people. Good for you, i do not lower myself to your level and if you want to insult me again, feel free please but remember, my point is not market share, it's quality, durability and 64 bits that 9 million people happily accepted.
Posted by: Gonzalo | October 30, 2013 at 06:14 AM
@Gonzalo
"Rolex and many more who care little about market share but care about quality, durability and value."
The funny thing is, that a $5 Digital watch keeps the time better than a $10k mechanical Rolex.
@Gonzales
"If you can't discern between and obsolete 32 bit smart phone and a 64 bit pocket computer it's fine with me , not everyone digs deep into technology before commenting,"
This comment makes it obvious that you are one of those who do not dig into the technology before commenting. The iPhone using a 64 bit processor with 1G of RAM has only incremental influence on performance or capabilities.
Posted by: Winter | October 30, 2013 at 08:29 AM
> Then we ask Mercedes Benz, Porsche, BMW, Harley Davidson, Rolex and many more
> who care little about market share but care about quality, durability and value. If you
> care about market share keep drinking Coke and eating hamburgers, i rater drink wine.
The problem is that Android is evolving much faster than iOS.
Would Mercedes Benz, Porsche, BMW, Harley Davidson and Rolex have kept their status symbol if they became worse than competitors?
A better comparison would be the American versus Japanese car industries. Americans were unbeatable -- until the Japanese came with cars that were not only cheaper, but also better than the American.
That's what happening with Apple right now. We can see the trend now, but the full effect of the change will be only seen in 5-10 years.
Posted by: foo | October 30, 2013 at 04:08 PM
@Gonzalo
>> Then we ask Mercedes Benz, Porsche, BMW, Harley Davidson, Rolex and many more who care little about market share but care about quality, durability and value. If you care about market share keep drinking Coke and eating hamburgers, i rater drink wine.
Yes, because BMW only offers the 760i and the M5, they would never release a 116i. Oh wait...
Porsche has a products like Cayenne, Cayman, Boxster, Carrera, Panamera, 918. You can get sedans, sports cars, racing cars, SUVs, Diesel, Hybrid, 6 or 8 cylinders etcetc.
It is really funny that you don't even manage to troll correctly. At least you could find examples of companies without such a wide price range in their product portfolio. Next time try it with some real exception to the rule, like B&O.
Focusing on profits alone has found another victim lately, Loewe from Germany. As the market share shrinks, negative side-effects add up, economies of scale work against you, and in the end you die.
Note that Apple would have gone bancrupt in 1995 without MS bailing them out. Main reason: Fosusing on profits alone while neglecting market share.
Quantity has a quality all its own, xou know.
>> If you can't discern between and obsolete 32 bit smart phone and a 64 bit pocket computer it's fine with me
Your '64 bit pocket compute' does not even have a real file browser. You cannot decide which programs you install because all you are allowed to use are Apple-controlled Apps from their App Store. You cannot even attach an MP3-file to an E-mail.
But for some people this is a blessing instead of a curse because they are too stupid to handle the complexity of a real computer.
Posted by: Huber | October 30, 2013 at 07:00 PM
Tomi,
We all know the growth in the smartphone market is in the low end, so it should not be surprising that a company which sells nothing under $400 is not growing market share. I am not saying this is insignificant, just that its not really all that insightful.
I'll take this one step further and suggest maybe its time to stop counting smartphones separate from all devices. If there is no distinction between a $50 Coolpad and a $700 Note3, why make the distinction between smart and non-smart? I think we are at the point where market share of total mobile phones is more telling since the denominator less subjective and the growth of which is better understood.
Posted by: darwinphish | October 30, 2013 at 09:48 PM
@Huber:
"Focusing on profits alone has found another victim lately,"
Let's not forget that Apple already was almost there once. There's no guarantee it can't happen again.
@Baron95:
You predicted peak Android last year and it didn't come. So what? Making anylyses with an intended bias to a specific company is never going to yield good results.
Also, let's not forget that despite not having launched everywhere, the iPhone 5 is already available in all major markets. What's left is more or less peanuts, except for China Mobile. Also, Tomi's numbers all contain 4 quarters so that seasonal effects are mostly eliminated. And the trend is clearly visible. Apple had its peak last year.
As for the Japan numbers, big deal. That's typical one-time effects that are just evening out the shrinking numbers in other countries.
Posted by: RottenApple | October 31, 2013 at 12:29 AM
I like Baron95. He's really simple. As in "Apple are winners, everyone else are losers".
Consider a situation where market share of a given company A is flat and is only growing because it's becomes available in a new countries.
Well, if A==RIM or A==Nokia then conclusion is "This is a story of market by market battles. Looking at aggregate number means nothing. That is simply the point where Nokia and RIM ran out of places to hide."
And if A==Apple then it's "And calling peak iPhone before it is even fully rolled out in the major operators is highly premature."
Well, technically that's correct in both cases but if we'll go by his own words alone (more-or-less flat wordlwide market share with growing number of markets == collapse is imminent) then Apple should be bankrupt in a few years. Which is NOT the prediction many are ready accept today (me included).
Of course if Apple *will* collapse in a few years then Baron95's past explanations WRT fate of Nokia and RIM will suddenly be justified... although I doubt Baron95 will like such justification.
Posted by: khim | October 31, 2013 at 10:46 AM
@Boron95
"Also, full Google Android has peaked even on a global basis."
That is not an operating system.
So what is it you want to say? That you cannot bear the thought of "competition", and are mentally unable to combine offerings from different companies into a single category?
Posted by: Winter | October 31, 2013 at 10:51 AM
Those discussions about peak vs. non-peak, selected-markets vs. global-market, quarter X vs. quarter Y, operator X vs. all operators, flagship launch vs. stead state make me think that one should probably look at smoothed moving averages to compare the performance of various manufacturers, and not raw monthly/quarterly figures.
Posted by: E.Casais | October 31, 2013 at 11:33 AM
@E.Casals
"make me think that one should probably look at smoothed moving averages to compare the performance of various manufacturers, and not raw monthly/quarterly figures."
Which is what Tomi was doing above.
Also, all such data show that Android is gaining relative to iPhone.
Posted by: Winter | October 31, 2013 at 11:48 AM
@Leebase
"The latter customers do not participate much at all in the ecosystem sales. "
It is not just apps, mp3, e-books and fancy cases you know.
Tomi will probably disagree and may fire off a salvo of statistics showing how much content is being bought on feature phones (in your general sense).
A problem is that the perspective of what an "ecosystem" entails differs amongst countries. For instance, how much e-money banking is taking place via mobile phones in the USA compared to, say, Kenya or South Africa?
No, not paying for electronic content in app stores, or replacing a credit card at the POS; e-money -- transferable to anybody with a corresponding mobile e-money bank account. Tomi has been talking about that kind of unglamorous, below-the-radar applications for a while -- they are growing, are major factors in Africa, and have the potential to become major factors worldwide. And Apple, Google and Microsoft are absent from that ecosystem...
Posted by: E.Casais | October 31, 2013 at 01:12 PM
@LeeBase/E.Casals
What is this "Ecosystem" you talk about? From the use it seems to be an euphemism for "paying consumer".
A BUSINESS ECOSYSTEM in the original meaning of the word is:
“An economic community supported by a foundation of interacting organizations and individuals—the organisms of the business world. The economic community produces goods and services of value to customers, who are themselves members of the ecosystem. The member organisms also include suppliers, lead producers, competitors, and other stakeholders. Over time, they coevolve their capabilities and roles, and tend to align themselves with the directions set by one or more central companies. Those companies holding leadership roles may change over time, but the function of ecosystem leader is valued by the community because it enables members to move toward shared visions to align their investments, and to find mutually supportive roles.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_ecosystem
Paying consumers are only a small part of the ecosystem. And consumers generate only part of the income. Ads and marketing deliver additional income.
Btw, 30% and more of the income of the iPhone "ecosystem" is hoarded by Apple (hard= and software). The picture of a giant parasitic mold sapping the iPhone "ecosystem" comes to mind.
Posted by: Winter | October 31, 2013 at 03:48 PM
@Winter:
"From the use it seems to be an euphemism for "paying consumer".
Actually, I follow a similar definition as the one you propose. The issue being discussed was specifically that "the latter customers do not participate much at all in the ecosystem sales". From this -- admittedly restricted -- perspective, one is missing the facts that the ecosystem is bigger and more varied, and customers do massively partake in economic transactions -- except these are not the ones everybody thinks at first.
The second point is that an ecosystem is not just B2C commercial transactions, as you rightly point out.
Posted by: E.Casais | October 31, 2013 at 04:20 PM
@leebase:
That may be, but the lower end customers still need to be served - and it's a faulty assumption that those are valueless. They are only valueless if you put corporate greed at the front of your business model - like Apple does.
All that superphone talk is nonsense anyway. In what way do the high end phones offer genuine added value? Seriously, the gap between entry level and high end phones is closing, not widening. Today's entry level smartphones are miles ahead of the first iPhones and they also can be safely considered 'pocket computers'. If you can get almost the same processing power and features for far less money (no, we're not there yet but that's where the market will head to) I wouldn't hold my bets for Apple.
BTW, iPhone may be dominant in the US - but it's far from that in many other markets - even if you just count the so-called 'superphone' segment
Posted by: RottenApple | October 31, 2013 at 06:13 PM
Tomi, Apple showing once again that it's the software, not a spec war:
iPhone 5S vs. Nokia Lumia 1020 Camera Shootout
Laptop Magazine:
The iPhone 5s conclusively beat the Nokia Lumia 1020 in our photo face-off, taking seven out of 10 rounds–and tying one. Even after updating the Lumia 1020′s camera software, which reduced issues with the blue color cast on many images, colors were still more accurate on the iPhone. Apple’s device also excelled when delivering detail and contrast.
The advantage that the Lumia 1020 has is that you can recompose your shot after you take it because of the phone’s very high 41-MP resolution. Overall, though, the iPhone 5s snapped better-looking images in a wider range of conditions.
Posted by: Roy Liu | October 31, 2013 at 10:39 PM
@leebase, you say "That's why now EVERY major telecom company has signed on with Apple. There are no more significant holdouts (that I know of)."
But it could also be that Apple eventually gave up on some of its terms, during the negotiation. You have no way of knowing that, and I suspect that China Mobile got a better deal than, say, Sprint.
Posted by: virgil | November 01, 2013 at 08:04 AM