According to the latest research from Strategy Analytics, global smartphone revenues hit an all-time high of US$120 billion during the fourth quarter of 2017. Apple captured a record 51 percent global smartphone revenue share, accounting for more than the rest of the entire industry combined.

Linda Sui, Director at Strategy Analytics, said in a statement, “We estimate total global smartphone wholesale revenues grew 8 percent annually to reach an all-time high of US$120 billion during Q4 2017. The smartphone industry’s wholesale average selling price surged 18 percent annually from US$255 in Q4 2016 to US$300 in Q4 2017. The smartphone industry has managed to increase massively its pricing and revenues, despite a recent decrease in shipment volumes.”

“We estimate Apple iPhone captured a record 51 percent share of all smartphone wholesale revenues worldwide in Q4 2017,” Neil Mawston, Executive Director at Strategy Analytics, said in a statement. “Apple iPhone generated a huge US$61 billion in the quarter, helped by solid demand for its premium X model, and Apple now accounts for more revenue than the rest of the entire global smartphone industry combined. Apple generated three times more smartphone revenue than nearest rival Samsung and 7 times more than Huawei. Apple iPhone’s average selling price is approaching US$800 and almost three times higher than the overall industry average. Apple iPhone is an incredible money-making machine.”

Apple's flagship iPhone X

Apple’s flagship iPhone X

Global Smartphone Wholesale Revenues by Vendor in Q4 2017
Global Smartphone Wholesale Revenues by Vendor in Q4 2017

The full report, Global Smartphone Revenue, ASP and Profit by Vendor by Price Tier: Q4 2017, is published by the Strategy Analytics Wireless Smartphone Strategies (WSS) service, details of which can be found here.

Source: Strategy Analytics

MacDailyNews Take: Market share, schmarket share. Behold what Steve hath wrought! The also-rans and wannabes stand with mouths agape. “Bu, bu, bu, we copied and stole as much as we could to grab unit share volume,” they stammer.

Little Mikey had a lemonade stand. Okay, it was a kiosk. He sold 100 (8 oz.) cups yesterday for 10-cents each. He spent 11-cents per cup for artificial lemon flavoring, corn syrup, and the paper cups. He used tap water because it was free. Threw it all together in a big plastic pail. He’s out a buck for all of his trouble. Boy, that was a lot of work for less than nothing!

Around the block, little Steve runs a lemonade stand, too. It’s all blonde wood and very clean. He sold 50 (24 oz.) glasses yesterday for 50-cents each. He spent 20-cents per glass on fresh-squeezed lemons, pure cane sugar, spring water (mixed with the utmost care), and some very nice glassware (he buys in bulk and gets a good price). He took home $15 yesterday. He’s currently building his newest stand right where Mikey’s used to be.MacDailyNews, April 23, 2009

“All men are created equal.”

Well, not when it comes to users of smartphones and tablets…

The bottom line: Those who settle for Android devices are not equal to iOS users. The fact is that iOS users are worth significantly more than Android settlers to developers, advertisers, third-party accessory makers (speakers, cases, chargers, cables, etc.), vehicle makers, musicians, TV show producers, movie producers, book authors, carriers, retailers, podcasters… The list goes on and on.

The quality of the customer matters. A lot.

Facile “analyses” that look only at market (unit) share, equating one Android settler to one iOS user, make a fatal error by incorrectly equating users of each platform one-to-one.

When it comes to mobile operating systems, all users are simply not equal.SteveJack, MacDailyNews, November 15, 2014

Android is pushed to users who are, in general:

a) confused about why they should be choosing an iPhone over an inferior knockoff and therefore might be less prone to understand/explore their devices’ capabilities or trust their devices with credit card info for shopping; and/or
b) enticed with “Buy One Get One Free,” “Buy One, Get Two or More Free,” or similar ($100 Gift Cards with Purchase) offers.

Neither type of customer is the cream of the crop when it comes to successful engagement or coveted demographics; closer to the bottom of the barrel than the top, in fact. Android can be widespread and still demographically inferior precisely because of the way in which and to whom Android devices are marketed. Unending BOGO promos attract a seemingly unending stream of cheapskate freetards just as inane, pointless TV commercials about robots or blasting holes in concrete walls attract meatheads and dullards, not exactly the best demographics unless you’re peddling muscle building powders or grease monkey overalls.

Google made a crucial mistake: They gave away Android to “partners” who pushed and continue to push the product into the hands of the exact opposite type of user that Google needs for Android to truly thrive. Hence, Android is a backwater of second-rate, or worse, app versions that are only downloaded when free or ad-supported – but the Android user is notoriously cheap, so the ads don’t sell for much because they don’t work very well. You’d have guessed that Google would have understood this, but you’d have guessed wrong.

Google built a platform that depends heavily on advertising support, but sold it to the very type of customer who’s the least likely to patronize ads.

iOS users are the ones who buy apps, so developers focus on iOS users. iOS users buy products, so accessory makers focus on iOS users. iOS users have money and the proven will to spend it, so vehicle makers focus on iOS users. Etcetera. Android can have the Hee Haw demographic. Apple doesn’t want it or need it; it’s far more trouble than it’s worth.MacDailyNews, November 26, 2012

Strategy Analytics: Apple has shipped 1.2 billion iPhones in the past 10 years; $760 billion in global revenue to date – September 8, 2017
Apple took 83% of smartphone market profits in calendar first quarter – May 16, 2017
How important is Apple’s iPhone market share? – May 29, 2017