Posted on 10/10/2017 7:14:37 PM PDT by Swordmaker
The latest CNBC All-America Economic Survey reports that 64% of Americans now own at least one Apple product, and that the average U.S. household now owns an average of 2.6 Apple products. CNBC first asked the question back in 2012, when the numbers were 50% and 1.6 products.
Even more impressive is the fact that there are very few demographics where Apple product ownership is below 50% …
CNBC reports on a few exceptions.
The product is ubiquitous by income group, age, race, sex and region of the country — more than half of nearly all demographic groups report owning at least one Apple product. The household ownership rate is below 50 percent for only a few groups, including those with incomes under $30,000, retirees and women over age 50.
As you’d expect, ownership is highest in the wealthiest segments.
87% of American with incomes over $100,000 report owning at least one Apple product […] The wealthiest Americans own 4.7 products per household compared with just one for the poorest. Americans in the West own 3.7, compared with 2.2 in the South.
The pollsters behind the study say that these kind of numbers are usually unheard of for products at Apple’s price levels.
“I cannot think of any other product — especially any other product at a high price point — that has that kind of permeation with the public and level of growth,” said Jay Campbell, pollster with Hart Research, which conducted the survey along with Public Opinion Strategies.
Almost two-thirds say their smartphone usage is ‘mostly productive and useful.’
The survey of 800 Americans was conducted in late September, and the margin of error is +/- 3.5%.
1977 machines.
Both my wife and I have never owned an Apple product. Our daughter has the iPhone 6+ however.
“The sad part of this is Apple has a monopoly on smart phones....”
I must take issue with that statement. I have had a “smartphone” from the beginning, before even Apple. It was a Treo, which combined a cell phone with a Palm Pilot PIM.
Pretty cool, for the time. A couple of Treos, three HTCs, and now my first LG.
iPhones do not do anything, that cannot be done with Android.
When Cook took over as CEO at the death of Steve Jobs, the Market Cap of Apple was $349 Billion the day before he died. However, Tim Cook had been acting CEO for four years by that day. Now, the Market Cap is $805 billion as of this afternoon's close. That is hardly running Apple into the ground.
I think you just did not take the time to learn how to use your iPod and iTunes.
Count me in with the 36% that doesn’t and doesn’t want to.
You'd be wrong about Apple "fanbois" being reckless spenders. We are anything but that. The fact is that Apple products have a LOWER COST OF OWNERSHIP than their competition. This has been proven time and time again by every serious study done by multiple economists who have seriously looked at them. Once you take into account value at end of usable life, cost of operation, and technical support over the useful life, it is far less expensive to own Apple products than any of the competition.
The latest company to come to that conclusion is IBM, which is shifting all of their 400,000 worldwide employees over to Apple products and are finding they are saving multiple millions of dollars of in-house tech support alone every quarter with a more than 41% reduction in trouble tickets alone.
The problem with that IDC chart and any other chart prepared by Garmin, is they use "units shipped" of phones, all mobile phones, regardless of capabilities, and lump them under the category of "smartphone" when they are not.
Samsung and the other Android makers lump all the Android phones together, regardless of whether than are smartphones, feature phones, or just plain dumb phones in their shipped phones reported. Such aggregation of their models they ship does not represent the true comparison of the "smartphones" market that Apple competes in. . . because many of those are simply NOT smartphones. Many of them are just mere phones. . . with some limited capabilities some with more.
They are not handheld computers with a phone app that is a smartphone. They are phones first with some apps added on. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE.
“What Apple does have, is almost a monopoly in the earnings space of smartphones. But, number of phones is almost 90% the Android variety.’
Even if this is true it changes nothing I said. Google owns Android. Google is a far-left high tech company that funds the murder of children all over the world. All the high tech companies are all die hard liberals. Every last one of them.
Android is the system in the vast majority of junk cell phones and tablets. You can buy them for less than $50.
Ipads and Iphones are easier to use and last longer. I had a Samsung Note 3 for years. Go to the internet for a few minutes to check a few ball scores and it’ll take 50% of the battery. I was constantly charging the battery. Turned off, with no apps on, the battery will still drain. Now they have a built in battery like an iphone. If you have one with a replacable battery get rid of it. You can’t buy the battery anymore. Best cell phone I ever owned was a Motorola. It was a flip phone.
+1 for that.. but I have been anti-apple since the ‘80s ;p
(Also hate WinBlows...)
I don't know - my Android phone is pretty darned smart. Does everything an iPhone does.
There’s no profit in selling Android phones. There’s even less profit in supporting Android phones. The carriers are better off when they sell you a new phone. The Sales Kiddie working in your carrier’s store is likely getting SPIFs by selling a you a new Android device.
All of this nonsense jacks up Android sales numbers.
Meanwhile, the poor iPhone users soldier along with their overpriced devices.
I’ve owned about a dozen Apple devices since 2003, iPods, iPads, iPhones and MacBooks. Never once had to replace a battery on any of them. I still use a 2006 iPod for hiking and outdoor activities. Original battery still going strong.
There’s no direct profit from hardware sales of Android devices. The profits are expected “post-sales”, like with advertising and apps sales. Google does very well in the advertising side of smartphones.
However, when it comes to earnings from Android device sales, Microsoft gets a billion+ from the royalties collected from each device sold.
The carriers do not make much from Android device sales, but they do expect earnings from the cell service being sold to the device owners. If there weren’t enough earnings from selling cell service, then the carriers would not be in that business.
Android sales are high, simply because the devices are as good as the iPhones and even better, and in the last few years, Android phones have been setting the pace for new features and latest-and-greatest hardware. Apple has been trailing the Android market when it comes to “new” features, and in fact, Apple is behind by about 2-3 years when it comes to adding features to iPhones. Apple is not the tech leader anymore when it comes to smartphones.
After smartphones got good enough to keep for 3-5 years, then, most sales will be to those that need/feel-like they need to upgrade or keep up with the latest tech.
Android sales are huge because people feel they can get all or most of what they need from a less expensive device. Why pay $600 or more, when a $100 smartphone will do just fine. In fact, I got my wife a $285 Android smartphone, with the latest technology available in December 2016, and at that time, that phone had technology that Apple is just now integrating into their iPhone 8/8s and iPhone X. In fact, that $285 phone came with 6 GB of main memory, and 128 GB storage, and a 5.7 high resolution screen and the Snapdragon 821 processor, which is still considered latest technology processor (only the 835 is newer). Apple’s expensive iP8 and iPX come with less main memory and less storage, and its screens are no better than what my wife’s phone already had from about a year ago. And, she still has no clue about what to do with the many features that she has available on her phone. It’s overkill, just like most smartphone tech.
You are completely right about Google being a far-left tech company, and I hate them for that. In fact, I don’t use any of their services. No apps, no online services; only what is included with Android OS.
Apple is just as bad when it comes to far-left political views and support, so, what do we do then? It’s either Android phones or iPhones. I don’t want to support either, so, I go with the one that gets them the least monetary support, that being Android. When a non-political mobile OS is developed and manufacturers start making smartphones to go with that OS, I’ll be very much interested. That may never happen, and it would be too far in the future and not a profitable endeavor for any company.
In today’s smartphone markets, there is very little to distinguish smartphones from feature phones. In fact, a lot of what are called feature phones nowadays are just as capable as smartphones of a few years ago.
And, you are trying to compare Samsung against Apple when it comes to smartphones, but the Android smartphone market and sales is many times as big as the iPhone sales and iPhone market.
Samsung suffered huge sales losses because of that Note7 debacle last year, and now, they’re having sales numbers with their current crop and much better than Apple with their iPhones. BTW, I don’t care for the Android market, just as much as I don’t care about the iPhone market. I’m just talking sales and markets, with no preference, other than going with the less expensive option, that being Android.
Then, you talk about how older iPhones still sell for good and decent prices, which I consider to be stupid decision-making on the part of consumers. It’s stupid when one can get a brand new Android smartphone, with the latest-and-greatest hardware technology, at the same price as a 2-3 year old iPhone which might be priced at between $300-$500. That’s insane and dumb. I’ll take the brand new full-featured latest-tech smartphone at the same price as an outdated iPhone.
The only Apple product I own is less stock than I would like
Allow me to fix your claims for you to make them factual.
Android sales are high, simply because the devices are almost as good as the iPhones and never better, and in the last few years, Android phones have been setting the pace for new features and latest-and-greatest gimmicks and off-the-shelf generic hardware. Apple has been trailing leading the Android market when it comes to “new useful” features that actually work, and in fact, Apple is behind lagging by about about 2-3 years 1-2 years when it comes to adding actually functional and useful features rather than buggy gimmicks if they actually add utility to iPhones. Apple is not the tech leader anymore when it comes to smartphones when it comes to tech that actually is useful and matters to users.
In fact, I got my wife a $285 Android smartphone, with the latest technology available in December 2016, and at that time, that phone had technology that Apple is just now integrating into their iPhone 8/8s and iPhone X. In fact, that $285 phone came with 6 GB of main memory, and 128 GB storage, and a 5.7 high resolution screen and the Snapdragon 821 processor, which is still considered latest technology processor (only the 835 is newer). Apple’s expensive iP8 and iPX come with less main memory and less storage, and its screens are no better than what my wife’s phone already had from about a year ago. And, she still has no clue about what to do with the many features that she has available on her phone. It’s overkill, just like most smartphone tech.
Your Android phone REQUIRED 6GB of RAM to accomplish what the iPhone was capable of BESTING in performing with only 2GBs of RAM because of sheer inefficiency. Your Android has 128GB of SLOW Flash storage compared to the higher quality FASTER Flash storage used in Apple devices. That "high resolution screen" in your Android was overkill for the distances anyone uses a smartphone.
Here are the facts:
The human eye with 20/20 vision cannot see granular detail less than about 300 PPI at 12 inches (Actually 286 PPI). The average person is defined to have a resolution of 1º arc minute of resolution, which can only resolve a dot of 0.0035 inches at 12 inches. Apple's (previous) Retina display on the iPhone is 40 PPI greater than that limit at 326 PPI, which when calculated (1"/326) results in a dot of 0.0031 inches, below that limit.I will grant you that a person with 20/10 vision, so called "perfect" vision, can actually resolve a dot that is 0.6º arc minutes, which is a dot of 0.0021 inch at 12 inches, which is a resolution of 477 PPI. Only 1% of the population has 20/10 vision. Most of those people are under 4 years old and unlikely to be concerned with using the highest quality of smartphone screens available.
A very rare portion of the population has 20/5 vision. . . above perfect vision, who can resolve a dot of around 0.3 arc minutes. Only those could possibly use the 515 PPI or the really ridiculous 577 of the Samsung Galaxy S6, which has a dot pitch of 0.0017 inch, half of what can be discerned by a human eye and requires the hard ware to push around FOUR TIMES THE PIXELS really necessary for clear images. Ridiculous, especially if they are moving images!
Apple provides just exactly what is needed in screens to animate them most efficiently, not hyped overkill that slows down the function of the screen so that Android users like you can brag about super-high pixel counts.
Your definition of "better" is, to say the least, simplistic when there are far more important specifications that go into the quality of a screen than the excess number of pixels which are indiscernible by the human eye that slow down the screen. For example, such things as color gamut, accuracy of color to reality, etc., of which Apple's iPhones have consistently been rated as the best, are far more indicative of the quality of a screen on a smartphone and for seeing the quality of the photo and video work you may be doing and editing.
Your claim about how the "Snapdragon 821 processor, which is still considered latest technology processor (only the 835 is newer)" is actually false. The Snapdragon is only the latest technology if you are talking about processors which are only available for Android phones. The A series of processors designed by Apple have been consistently blowing the contemporaneous Snapdragons out of the water in all Geekbench speed tests and functions. . . with fewer cores and offer more functions on their SoC designs. The best and latest processors are only available on the Apple devices. That is a fact attested to by the numerous reviews of their performance and capabilities.
For example, the new A11 has something not a single Snapdragon has, a Neural Engine processor which can turn in 600 billion calculations per second. All A series processors since the A8 have had something else that NO Snapdragon or any other ARM based processor has: the Secure Enclave and a dedicated Encryption Engine, designed to provide 256 bit AES end-to-end data encryption on the fly, something no Android device offers, opting instead to provide bolted-on third-party encryption, which, by definition, cannot be end-to-end.
Here are comparison scores for Apple and Android GeekBench tests. Pay attention to the Scores, not the relative lengths of the bar graphs within the graphs as they are relative only within themselves. The scores tell the actual data.
The iPhone 8, 8 Plus were released in September 2017, the iPhone X will be released November 2017. The iPhone 7, 7 Plus and SE were released in September 2016. The various Android models were released in the months and years in the bars.
Apple A Series Single Core Geekbench scores:
Android Single Core Geekbench scores:
Apple A Series Multi-Core Geekbench scores:
Android Multi-Core Geekbench scores:
So much for you baseless claims.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.