Apple's actual market share is less than 20% of all smartphones worldwide, though their share of profits is at 92%. This is not about their phone selling more than other phones (they aren't necessarily), but rather how Apple manages profit margins. Their phones are much more expensive than the competition, command premium prices and thus yield premium profits.

Yet, in at least North America, equivalent "high end" Android smartphones cost the same on contract and even off contract than iPhones. I can get an older iPhone 5c for free (probably a 5S is I go with a smaller carrier). Where are people paying a "premium" for the iPhone?

Is is that not enough people choose the flagship Android devices to move the needle? I'm genuinely curious/asking because it seems/appears there's some parity (price) between the current flagship Android devices and Apple's newest.

Also, profit formulas aren't that simple. You have consider Apple's costs vs their revenue for each phone, and also their contract terms with providers vs other phones. I don't know the details. But perhaps Apple earns more for their phone contracts even if consumers pay the same. One thing we do know is that Apple leads the world in an extremely well-oiled production pipeline and network of suppliers that no doubt also helps keep their costs down and thus their profits high. I doubt Android manufacturers are operating at that same margin.

Good points. I would imagine that Apple has a better supply chain, and more aggressive/favorable terms with each provider than competing smartphone makers. I'm not sure it accounts for the entire difference. I wonder if there's a middle area or marketplace where people pay disproportionally more on average which helps this figure (92%) climb so high.

> But perhaps Apple earns more for their phone contracts even if consumers pay the same.

Considering the demand for iPhones a few years ago I'd be amazed if this wasn't the case, I suspect the carriers also pay a chunk of the advertising if it's an exclusive deal.

I think this is it exactly. The number of people who buy high end Android phones is a tiny slice of the total Android market. The vast majority are the same people who bought Nokia candybars in the past--people looking for whatever they get for "free" on contract.

This is also why the Apple app store sells so well compared to the Google Play store. People with crap low end Android phones struggle to run many apps, and their phone didn't come with enough storage for them.

"...their (crap low end Android) phone didn't come with enough storage for them"

My brand new iPhone 6 only has 12 GB of usable storage. I'm currently using more than half with only a small selection of apps, photos and music. IMHO that's pretty crap - and I paid a premium for it (doh!)

Android phones for some reason rarely come with enough storage. It's easy to buy 8GB phones, and Android is less space efficient than iOS. The only saving grace is that they often include uSD slots, although convincing your apps to use that space can be difficult sometimes.

Well I paid $1000 including Apple Care for my iphone, so that's a pretty hefty profit to Apple!

Those really are incredible figures when you think about it. 20% of market share reaping 92% of the profits. Is there any comparable in any other industry? Ever? I'm currently in the android camp but I have to say I'm astounded how Apple consistently pulls off these kinds of numbers.

And would that not mean that their phone is more desirable? Lots of things are desirable that are not affordable and are not, therefore, purchased in vast quantities.

Depends how you quantify "desirable" but since there are many more Android phones in the world than iPhones, some would say that means Android phones are more desirable. But either way, that really has little to do with profits. If I sell just one item in my entire life for a million bucks, something that cost me ten bucks to make, that is pretty impressive profits, even though it was not desirable since only one person bought it.

I think you can only associate desirability with units if you hold other things equal: price, availability, etc.

I wonder if someone has done marketshare numbers with respect to flagship phones. I thought the Nexus 5 was a great phone for $350, but then the Nexus 6 went back to full flagship price and pushed me back to an iPhone for that amount of money.

My thought is, if Apple is pulling all of the profits then they are the flagship to buy if someone is in the market for a flagship phone. Otherwise, if someone is buying on price it is Android all the way.

Hardware is nothing without software.

They make more desirable phones because they make iOS.

People don't so much care about the iPhone; they want iOS and the safety, convenience, and integration with the Apple software ecosystem.

Apple has leveraged this into a hugely profitable position by making the only hardware supported by this OS.

The iPhone is crap when evaluated on battery life or camera quality, for example.

It's software that's eating the world.

I would kind of agree with you. I use android because I can simply plug it in and drag and drop any file I want. Yes, there's dropbox, etc. Those aren't options for me. Also, I love the way Android allows data to be shared between apps. I find it very intuitive.

If iOS had those things, I think I'd try switching, just to get something new.

AirDrop - you don't even have to plug it in.

Not sure this would cover my requirement.

It seems based on the tech site reviews that I've read, flagship Android phones have only now caught up to or surpassed iPhones with regards to camera quality with the latest iterations of flagship Samsung and LG phones.

In 2015, not proportional to that profit difference, no. iPhones are not dozens of times better than all Android phones. There's something else to it, the construction of some sort of successful moat that allows them to charge more.

More desirable as in; people are willing to pay more.

Yes, that's my point. There has to be more to it than just "they're better", because no matter how Apple fanboy someone may want to be today, there's no conceivable way they are that much better. There must be some kind of moat. Full stack integration or some sort of big savings from owning the OS or something, because it has to be more than just "they're better". Besides, if it were just a raw "they're better" they'd have a much bigger market share, too.

If it were that simple, wouldn't they have more than 20% market share? It seems clear to me that iPhone owners are paying a premium for the branding, which is pure profit from Apple's perspective.

Why is it so hard to accept the notion that people are paying a premium for a premium product?

Premium products usually cost more to make justifying the price. The point being made is that the cost to manufacture the iphone isn't any more than say an android device, so your just paying apples exclusivity tax.

Because, having used both, there's nothing "premium" about the iPhone experience except the perception in iPhone users' heads.

But that's just it. "Premium" is a subject term. I’ve used both (you mean Android, right? there's other platforms) and found that Android is garbage. So I'm paying good money for a good product. You're free to disagree about the quality but don't tell me I'm brainwashed without offering to pay for a psychiatric evaluation.

I suspect that this is a motte and bailey trick. Users of the iPhone claim that they use a better product, where by better they mean "objectively better", but when challenged on what it is exactly that makes it so much better, retreat to, "Well it's just my preference", and then as soon as the critics say, "That's fine if it's just your preference, but recognize that you're paying a massive tax for what you've admitted is just a subjective preference," they move back to, "Apple makes better products so they make more money." As if it's some kind of objective truth, even though they've admitted that it's not.

"People pay premium for a premium product" doesn't signify to me a subjective difference. Especially when it's used to argue that the premium paid has nothing to do with Apple's branding, an objective and extremely common reason that people pay premium prices for products that are objectively identical to their competitors.

Most people would consider a Ferrari to be more desirable than a Toyota, yet Toyota sells many magnitudes more cars than Ferraris because Ferraris are out of reach for most consumers. If money were no object, many more people would own Ferraris in lieu of Toyotas (but not all, given that Toyotas may be more practical, more reliable, easier to maintain, etc.).

Why is it clear to you that the premium is purely a function of branding, and that physical attributes of the product are not also factored in somehow?

This is not a rhetorical question: I could imagine a study that would explore the influence of brand vs. size, density, materials, etc.

Which would indicate desirability, no?

For that 20% of the market, sure. For the 80% that buy non-Apple phones, they are clearly more "desirable" to them.

ObBadCarAnalogy: Well, a Ferrari Enzo is more desirable to me than a Skoda Octavia, but I own a bicycle, so there's that.

How many people that bought a Corolla would have taken a Camry for the same price? (Again, not saying that Apple is better.)

This is very close to correct. The better analogy is something like Tesla vs the generic commuter subcompact field. The generic consumer subcompact marketplace is extremely competitive and therefore there are approximately zero profits to be made, whereas the Tesla has one model at one price and basically no competitors.

Want an iPhone, you'll buy THE iPhone for whatever Apple wants to charge.

Want an Android phone, you'll select from a zillion basically identical competitors all more or less profit free (because competitor A can't extract an extra 5% profit if that would drive 100% of competitor A's sales to sellers B thru Z)

This shows the fallacy of "the smartphone market", there's the non-competitive iphone market with about 20% sales and the hypercompetitive confuseopoly market the other 80% buy into.

Even with price parity through on-contract upgrades, apparently not that many. We should expect Apple marketshare to be much higher if the iPhone really is so clearly superior and more "desirable" to any rational consumer.

I do not disagree; but keep in mind that I've never spoken of "clearly superior", only desirable.

Also, since when did rationality enter the discussion? A beloved wants diamonds so their partner buys them. But diamonds are not worth anywhere near what's commonly paid for them.

There is a far mix of rational/irrational behavior in most luxury purchases--it's not an Apple exclusive trait.