A taxonomy of iPhone competitors
Who can keep track of all the touchscreen smartphones — and their attendant app stores — that emerged from Mobile World Congress this week to compete with Apple's (AAPL) iPhone?
RBC Capital's Mike Abramsky can. Attached to a report to clients released Friday is a handy chart of "emerging competitors" that covers most of the latest mobile operating systems: Palm's (PALM) webOS, Microsoft's (MSFT) Windows Mobile 6.5, Google's (GOOG) Android, Nokia's (NOK) Symbian S60 and couple of proprietary outliers.
The chart would be more realistic if it included the two smartphones battling most fiercely for the U.S. market: the iPhone and Research in Motion's (RIMM) BlackBerry.
But it's hard to tell the players without a scorecard, and this is a good start. The full chart is posted below the fold, with thanks to AppleInsider.
Abramsky sees the increasingly competitive landscape — and the pressure it will put on Cupertino to change the iPhone's pricing structure when and if it ships a third-generation model this year — as further justification for the "underperform" rating he slapped on Apple in January. Abramsky's $70 price target is the lowest in the business. (See Mike Abramsky's bad Apple advice.)
Apple shares closed Friday at $91.2, up 0.62% for the day.
Below: Abramsky's taxonomy.
Click to enlarge.
I see myself as a typical iPhone fan. I had a Macintosh computer back in the '80s but went PC after that … never owning another Apple product until the iPhone 3G. To sum it up, the iPhone benefits from the same innovation that made the original Macintosh popular: the intuitive user interface makes it easy for people who don't want to invest time learning how to use the device. Although I am an engineer by education, I hated the nested, cryptic menus on my last phone, so much so that I didn't use half the phone's features. Apps and music downloads and all that aside, the iPhone has at last enabled me to at least be able to use the phone, send and receive email and access websites without gnashing my teeth. Apple has simply done the same thing with the iPhone that it did with the original Mac, and now, just as Microsoft jumped on the GUI bandwagon after the Mac's success, other phone manufacturers are following the iPhone's lead at making a device that's easy to use.
Hey, max in marina del rey;
Get some originality, dude.
To my knowledge, the first time an Apple product was called a "toy" was in 1984, not so coincidentally the first year the Macintosh was sold.
(BTW, did you ever hear the joke after Windoze came out? "IBM" changed its name from International Business Machines to "I Became Macintosh"!)
And here we are 25 years later and dim bulbs like you STILL don't have a clue!
Hey, max in marina del rey;
Get some originality, dude.
To my knowledge, the first time an Apple product was called a "toy" was in 1984, not so coincidentally the first year the Macintosh was sold.
(BTW, did you ever hear the joke after Windoze came out? "IBM" changed its name from International Business Machines to "I Became Macintosh"!)
And here we are 25 years later and dim bulbs like you STILL don't have a clue!
"Abramsky sees the increasingly competitive landscape — and the pressure it will put on Cupertino to change the iPhone’s pricing structure" ..odd, since every phone listed on his little chart cost the same as the iphone and the data plan appears to cost the same too. So for e same money you get the iphone, which consistently gets the best ratings and customer satisfaction marks and has thousands of apps already available. Sounds like Abramsky needs to spend a little more time doing his homework.
"Abramsky sees the increasingly competitive landscape — and the pressure it will put on Cupertino to change the iPhone’s pricing structure" ..odd, since every phone listed on his little chart cost the same as the iphone and the data plan appears to cost the same too. So for e same money you get the iphone, which consistently gets the best ratings and customer satisfaction marks and has thousands of apps already available. Sounds like Abramsky needs to spend a little more time doing his homework.
Iphone is a great TOY but it suck for business. i bough the Iphone and 5 days later i returned it, first of all I'm a PC guy and i cannot figure out MAC stuff, and for me a cell is a tool and not a toy.
Steve Jobs, keep trying and good luck to come up with a real phone
Iphone is a great TOY but it suck for business. i bough the Iphone and 5 days later i returned it, first of all I'm a PC guy and i cannot figure out MAC stuff, and for me a cell is a tool and not a toy.
Steve Jobs, keep trying and good luck to come up with a real phone
Wow. What a wonderful collection of new touch screen phones. Understand that touch screen cell phones were introduced as far back as the HandSpring attachment in late 1990s and HTC did introduce their Wallaby phone in 2002. But the category really didn't take off because consumers were underwhelmed and simply did not vote with their dollars.
So now with iPhone, there's a new resurgence in the market. Not only that, carriers are creaming in their pants for new revenue streams to their pockets through these devices. All this accomplished by a new comer to the industry with 0 experience in that field. Steve Jobs was only interested in gaining 1% of the overall cell phone market at iPhone announcement. Someone here mentioned 2% are iPhones. If true, 2x the number has been achieved.
What's fascinating here is why Apple is effective in their relatively short time on the market? Currently, only 21 months in the cell phone business. Is it because they are better than others at making cell phones. Evidently not, as 3G call drops are amid it's problems. Is it because of marketing? But how do they out market everyone else. This is not Creative they are facing with the MP3 market. We're talking about companies on par with Apple in many cases. They have strengths in their own marketing and have the dollars to back it up. So it cannot be marketing itself.
So what could it be?
It's quite simple. Rather than making cell phones or smart phones, Apple changed the game and made a handheld computer with a phone and cell phone network built in. Computers are a game Apple was and still is a major pioneer in. Bringing it down to handheld is a matter of course for them. It's familiar territory. This game change is more than just hardware however. The other half is software and services: OSX and iTunes Store. Not only that, they know how to put it together well enough that attracts consumers. This may annoy the techies as it seem like everything Apple does is a locked-down dumbing down exercise. But look at the numbers for some reality. #1 music distributor (digital or otherwise) via iTunes. Do note the fact that their efforts were attempted in the past by other note worthy companies. But only Apple have managed to succeed and continue to grow digital music distribution. Furthermore, they've managed this without leveraging on an existing monopoly.
Now take the sum of all that into account and compared to the companies on the charts. They know the same thing I've mentioned. They've seen the numbers and profits. It's the only reason they are copying unashamedly today: touch screen phone, appstore, digital revenue sharing model, full web browsing, visual voicemail, multi-media player, swipe/pinch/flick, etc. This is no surprise. Follow the market leader. But there's a catch when you only follow the leader. You end up competing with others doing the same thing.
Each in the chart has their own strengths and weaknesses. And they have dominant positions in different niches. But to really compete with the iPhone, they are a great disadvantage because they do not own the whole enchilada: hardware+OS+appstore+SDK+digital distribution. It will be an interesting year.
Wow. What a wonderful collection of new touch screen phones. Understand that touch screen cell phones were introduced as far back as the HandSpring attachment in late 1990s and HTC did introduce their Wallaby phone in 2002. But the category really didn't take off because consumers were underwhelmed and simply did not vote with their dollars.
So now with iPhone, there's a new resurgence in the market. Not only that, carriers are creaming in their pants for new revenue streams to their pockets through these devices. All this accomplished by a new comer to the industry with 0 experience in that field. Steve Jobs was only interested in gaining 1% of the overall cell phone market at iPhone announcement. Someone here mentioned 2% are iPhones. If true, 2x the number has been achieved.
What's fascinating here is why Apple is effective in their relatively short time on the market? Currently, only 21 months in the cell phone business. Is it because they are better than others at making cell phones. Evidently not, as 3G call drops are amid it's problems. Is it because of marketing? But how do they out market everyone else. This is not Creative they are facing with the MP3 market. We're talking about companies on par with Apple in many cases. They have strengths in their own marketing and have the dollars to back it up. So it cannot be marketing itself.
So what could it be?
It's quite simple. Rather than making cell phones or smart phones, Apple changed the game and made a handheld computer with a phone and cell phone network built in. Computers are a game Apple was and still is a major pioneer in. Bringing it down to handheld is a matter of course for them. It's familiar territory. This game change is more than just hardware however. The other half is software and services: OSX and iTunes Store. Not only that, they know how to put it together well enough that attracts consumers. This may annoy the techies as it seem like everything Apple does is a locked-down dumbing down exercise. But look at the numbers for some reality. #1 music distributor (digital or otherwise) via iTunes. Do note the fact that their efforts were attempted in the past by other note worthy companies. But only Apple have managed to succeed and continue to grow digital music distribution. Furthermore, they've managed this without leveraging on an existing monopoly.
Now take the sum of all that into account and compared to the companies on the charts. They know the same thing I've mentioned. They've seen the numbers and profits. It's the only reason they are copying unashamedly today: touch screen phone, appstore, digital revenue sharing model, full web browsing, visual voicemail, multi-media player, swipe/pinch/flick, etc. This is no surprise. Follow the market leader. But there's a catch when you only follow the leader. You end up competing with others doing the same thing.
Each in the chart has their own strengths and weaknesses. And they have dominant positions in different niches. But to really compete with the iPhone, they are a great disadvantage because they do not own the whole enchilada: hardware+OS+appstore+SDK+digital distribution. It will be an interesting year.
Apple does not own 20% of the smartphone market – maybe of the small US smartphone market, but then the US always had warped mobile phone environment. I mean, even Nokia, the biggest phone maker and smartphone maker in the world, do not have a significant US presence.
In short, do not imagine success in the small US market means anything in terms of world-wide success.
Apple does not own 20% of the smartphone market – maybe of the small US smartphone market, but then the US always had warped mobile phone environment. I mean, even Nokia, the biggest phone maker and smartphone maker in the world, do not have a significant US presence.
In short, do not imagine success in the small US market means anything in terms of world-wide success.
It is overwhelming with so many choices to choose and as the smart phone features become more complex and technical. One major concern as for all portable devices is battery life, which is missing. Which one looks convincing in terms of reliability and productivity?
This continued argument is surprising to me. Doing a simple search of smart phone articles, just about all of them compare whatever the new model is to the iPhone. Common sense dictates that this comparison makes it the market leader. I have yet to see competitors gunning for second place. Clearly this guy is a bear market analyst. Just use common sense!
This continued argument is surprising to me. Doing a simple search of smart phone articles, just about all of them compare whatever the new model is to the iPhone. Common sense dictates that this comparison makes it the market leader. I have yet to see competitors gunning for second place. Clearly this guy is a bear market analyst. Just use common sense!
I think all these facts and figures are being misinterpreted.
Apple is a very small player in an overall mobile phone market.
However Apple is getting quite big in the smartphone market. The smartphone market represents only 10-15 % of the overall mobile phone market.
Apple at the moment has about 20-25% share of that smartphome market.
Therefore Apple only has a 2% overall market share for mobile phones.
Those are the real facts !
However let me emphasize that what is amazing about Apple is that they took 20-25% market share in such a short time. They also, like some people mentioned, revolutionized the smartphone industry and set a new standard.
So the question.. what is going to happen in the future?!!?
Nobody really know but here are the facts.
1. Smartphones are coming down in price and becoming more accessible to more people.
2. Mobile data is speeding up with LTE and HSPA making smartphones more useful.
3. If you look back historically its not the best software that wins but the one with the most marketing and the most applications for it.
If you consider those facts I would bet that Apple will be around and keep gaining market share.
Although HTC, PALM, and others can impress people with new features the do not have the clout, marketing, and application behind them to make a dent.
In my opinion the 2 that will remain standing are RIM and Apple.
(Not sure about Google since they are known to suprise people)
I think all these facts and figures are being misinterpreted.
Apple is a very small player in an overall mobile phone market.
However Apple is getting quite big in the smartphone market. The smartphone market represents only 10-15 % of the overall mobile phone market.
Apple at the moment has about 20-25% share of that smartphome market.
Therefore Apple only has a 2% overall market share for mobile phones.
Those are the real facts !
However let me emphasize that what is amazing about Apple is that they took 20-25% market share in such a short time. They also, like some people mentioned, revolutionized the smartphone industry and set a new standard.
So the question.. what is going to happen in the future?!!?
Nobody really know but here are the facts.
1. Smartphones are coming down in price and becoming more accessible to more people.
2. Mobile data is speeding up with LTE and HSPA making smartphones more useful.
3. If you look back historically its not the best software that wins but the one with the most marketing and the most applications for it.
If you consider those facts I would bet that Apple will be around and keep gaining market share.
Although HTC, PALM, and others can impress people with new features the do not have the clout, marketing, and application behind them to make a dent.
In my opinion the 2 that will remain standing are RIM and Apple.
(Not sure about Google since they are known to suprise people)
@Reginald
Actually, worldwide, the iPhone has a *small* percentage of the smartphone market, smaller than Windows Mobile and certainly smaller than RIM, and much smaller than Symbian. Dont be misled by news coverage. Apple always had the mindshare in the media, usually not so much in reality.
This is not the iPod all over again. The phone market is mature. Its more akin to the laptop market, where Apple is still struggling for relevance, and losing market share because they refuse to respond to pricing trends.
@Reginald
Actually, worldwide, the iPhone has a *small* percentage of the smartphone market, smaller than Windows Mobile and certainly smaller than RIM, and much smaller than Symbian. Dont be misled by news coverage. Apple always had the mindshare in the media, usually not so much in reality.
This is not the iPod all over again. The phone market is mature. Its more akin to the laptop market, where Apple is still struggling for relevance, and losing market share because they refuse to respond to pricing trends.
Recently, I was at site constructing an observatory in Asia, where we have problems with materials and installation.
I have an iPhone and captured all pictures at site with questions typing up through email sent immediately to the manufacturer in USA half way around the world. I got all the answers back next day morning and can carry on the construction work right away.
I have never has such an experience that I can obtain quick response with the help of the iPhone.
Never know if any other smartphone can do?
Recently, I was at site constructing an observatory in Asia, where we have problems with materials and installation.
I have an iPhone and captured all pictures at site with questions typing up through email sent immediately to the manufacturer in USA half way around the world. I got all the answers back next day morning and can carry on the construction work right away.
I have never has such an experience that I can obtain quick response with the help of the iPhone.
Never know if any other smartphone can do?
Ok when are people going to get it. Apple is the best. Mac is back. Windows, Samsung, Verizon- They're all being obliterated by the revolution called Apple.
Here's my new blog, You guys will love it http://theriverjordan.net/stop-fighting
Jordan.
It's still a bit early to talk about pressure on the iPhone, when the distribution, ie what carrier, is still up in the air for all of those devices except for the Pre. And, all the prices are estimated. I mean, until we know what price and what carrier, how can anyone even start to talk about pricing pressure. Nonsense as usual from Abramsky.
Iphone set the standard and Blackberry is setting it again. All the rest are choices for the un status quo.
Thanks
All the arguments and comparisons were interesting. After using the Palm Pre at he CES and being an iPhone and Blackberry customer, I have to take my hat off to Palm. I lost a fortune on Palm and promised that I would never buy another item from Palm or for that matter its original parent company, 3Com. However the Pre is so superior to the iPhone and Blackberry contingent, in both categories of hardware and software, that there is absolutely no comparison. All I can say is Whao! If the Pre can repeat what it did at the CES we will have entered a complete new generation of wireless technology. The Pre will be an example of “Creative Destruction.” The future will be the Pre, with its WebOS, against the rest. Remember everyone has almost caught up with Apple's iPhone, however the Pre will be the next standard to emulate.
All the arguments and comparisons were interensting. After using the Palm Pre at he CES and being an iPhone and Blackberry customer, I have to take my hat of to Palm. I lost a fortune on Palm and promised that I would never buy another item from Palm or for that matter its original parent company, 3Com. However the Pre is so superior to the iPhone and Blackberry contingent, in both categories of hardware and software, that there is absolutely no comparison. All I can say is Whao! If the Pre can repeat what it did at the CES we will have entered a complete new generation of wireless technology. The Pre be an example of "Creative Destruction." The future will be the Pre, with its WebOS, against the rest. Remember everyone has almost caught up with Apples iPhone, however the Pre will be the next standard to emulate.
It's all about iPhone 'wannabees'. Poor old RBC Capital’s Mike Abramsky is trying to remain relevant in this kind of a market. The poor guy is only trying to earn his lunch.
@sururdavids
No, not everyone is buying an iPhone. We get that. I haven't bought one because I'm in Canada and don't like Rogers, the same way that some in the US don't like AT&T. Such is life.
However, the iPhone **HAS** taken a very large percentage of smart phones and **HAS** taken mind share with its iPhone. It seems that no phone released today can be released without it being compared to the iPhone. Good, bad or indifferent, it is compared to ONE phone, that is from Apple.
It has been reported that Apple makes more profit from its iPhone than any other phone maker. If true, then Apple has more revenue to continually innovate and bring to market better and updated iPhones and services while the other makers will struggle to get to where the iPhone is today. It is easier for Apple to bring out NEW things to thrill its users than to come up with a product that does EVERYTHING that you and all the idiot pundits think they should do. Apple is making money. Motorola appears to be dieing. Nokia is struggling as it has lost market share. Android is still to be decided upon. Palm is betting everything on WebOS as they have announced they are discontinuing their previous PalmOS and like Windows Phone 6.5 is still a ways off in the future.
I think Apple has better odds of keeping increasing its market share than the others have of increasing their market share.
The data plan thing on the chart is way off. Sprint's plans (which the Pre will be on) are an extra $30 for unlimited data and unlimited text messaging, not $40 as the chart mentions.
Sprint's plans are the cheapest out there, in addition to being just as fast as the other carrier's internet plans, one of their largest advantages which directly translates to an advantage for the Pre.
As an example, the iPhone data plan is an extra $30 a month and includes absolutely no messaging features. Unlimited messaging is another $20 a month.
@jimmx
First, understands the iPhone is a minuscule percentage of the phone market. Most people do not chose the iPhone, so clearly Apple has not done enough to make it compelling to them.
Again, most people do not chose the iPhone, only the odd few ones.
Now, what do the more popular phones have which the iphone does now? (As mentioned above, most people do not chose the iphone. Its important to understand and accept that). They have hand keypads or keyboards, are cheap and are available on multiple carriers, not exclusive carriers, and are easy to use to make calls with, suport things like MMS and SMS forwarding, they are small and fit easily in the pocket.
Now you may tell me Apple's strategy is more profitable, but the fact remains that Apple is not on the fast track to taking over the phone industry when most people turn their nose up at them.
So, while in your imagination people need a reason to chose another phone instead of the iPhone, in reality Apple still needs to convince the vast,vast majority that their MID is worth their attention.
All these iPhone competitors. Note how they are all compared to the iPhone. Every time there is an article about one of these, it is and ad for the iPhone.
Here is one thought. When the dust settles in 2-5 years, which ones will be left standing? Hard to say. Only one thing is sure – the iPhone will still be around. Now – do you want to take a chance on investing in a dead-end product?
Finally — Yes, there are some people who want specific features (physical keyboard, non-ATT carrier, access to RIMM-mail) or who just hate Apple. These people will be pleased with another phone. As for everyone else – where is the compelling reason to choose any other phone over the iPhone??? This is why I say, like the iPod, there will be iPhone and others, and the others will just compete amongst themselves.
IMHO
If someone were to write a good comparison of all those touch screen smart phones they'd do a better job of helping the prospective buyer understand what's important and what's not. In this case, the author Abramsky hasn't a clue so that is an impossibility for him.
First of all, you would point out that it must have WiFi or cross it off the list. Without WiFi you'd be doing everything on a relatively slow 3G network including downloads. That's painful.
Secondly, you would point out that the App Store, with 22,000 applications available is what really makes the iPhone extra special. You would further explain that there is no guarantee than any of these other unreleased iPhone wannabes are going to have much of an app selection. That's a very big gamble and very long odds for an early adopter.
Third, you would explain that it's easy for a phone manufacturer to add hardware features like a touch screen, but not so easy to incorporate important functionality such as pinching and spreading your fingers to zoom the browser. Without an industrial strength underlying operating system that would be difficult. The truly crappy browser in Windows Mobile based phones will bear this out and version 6.5 will offer no relief (reference: http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/18/editorial-ten-reasons-why-windows-mobile-6-5-misses-the-mark/) This means you'll need to scratch off those phones based on Windows Mobile, Blackberry, and Symbian. This leaves you with Apple, Palm, and Android still standing.
AT&T's cellular network handles half the data traffic in the USA all because of the iPhone. They're hard at work building it out to handle the increased load.
I can type a lot faster on my iPhone than I can on a Blackberry (I tried it). Both keyboards are tiny so high-speed touch typing is out of the question. The iPhone virtual keyboard gives me two advantages: 1/ I've got a lot of practice time invested so my errors have gone down and my speed has gone up. I suppose practicing might enable me to type faster on the Blackberry too if I were to invest the time. 2/ I use the TouchType App to give me a landscape keyboard for composing and replying to eMails. That gives me much larger keys, and thus fewer typing mistakes, than on a Blackberry.
The idea that Blackberry has superior email is bogus from my perspective. I like the IMAP email offered by GMail. In fact, I like many things about GMail especially the huge free storage and the lightning quick searches. I seldom delete emails and can find an old email in a heartbeat. You don't have to use POP mail for Gmail. You can configure the iPhone's Mail app to use GMail's IMAP capability to keep the mailbox on the iPhone in sync with your Gmail accounts. There is a helpful YouTube video explaining how to set this up. Here is a link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ22euWXYog
Just because Apple marketing says Iphone is a smartphone does not mean you need to dumb down to the level of the 15 year old boys iPhone is meant to impress.
A touch screen does not a smartphone make.
After three years this POS is locked out of corporate firewalls for good reason, Its flawed OS, security cloud and incompatabity.
Apple primarily cares about making profit.
The iPhone clearly is the most profitable of the current smart phones.
It's going to be like the iPod.
Case closed.
If HTC really sells 80% of Windows Mobile devices, that means they sold 16 million of the 20 million Windows Mobile devices sold in 2008, significantly more than the hugely hyped iPhone.
Therefore dismissing HTC's Touch 2 as iPhone competitor is misguided.
When it comes to hardware and software the Diamond 2 significantly outclases the iPhone 3G, but of course does not have the same easy access to content.
If you are prepared to bring your own content however it is a much better device.
It humors me that his chart is of all these future devices with made up prices. When does WM 6.5 come out? Key hardware features. If they are a key features how about battery life, weight/size? His conclusion that Apple needs to change pricing is BS. All the other devices are matching Apple's price so they can sell units, but I doubt they have the same margins as Apple, If we are talking APPL stock Abramsky is clueless and his price target is meaningless.
Abramsky is an ass.
Why is it legal for these clowns to influence stock prices – this guy is desperately trying to justify his $70 target at the expense of anyone who might have Apple stock. In the midst of a market melt down this guy continues to hurt people – he's working very hard at market manipulation.
It's just plain wrong.
I see myself as a typical iPhone fan. I had a Macintosh computer back in the '80s but went PC after that … never owning another Apple product until the iPhone 3G. To sum it up, the iPhone benefits from the same innovation that made the original Macintosh popular: the intuitive user interface makes it easy for people who don't want to invest time learning how to use the device. Although I am an engineer by education, I hated the nested, cryptic menus on my last phone, so much so that I didn't use half the phone's features. Apps and music downloads and all that aside, the iPhone has at last enabled me to at least be able to use the phone, send and receive email and access websites without gnashing my teeth. Apple has simply done the same thing with the iPhone that it did with the original Mac, and now, just as Microsoft jumped on the GUI bandwagon after the Mac's success, other phone manufacturers are following the iPhone's lead at making a device that's easy to use.