iPhone

I'm late with posting my estimates for Apple's current (fourth fiscal) quarter. Normally I post my estimates a few days after the previous quarter's earnings are announced. This quarter however there was a lot to think about.

As pointed out in my analysis of the previous quarter, the iPhone sold at a far faster rate than I thought. I had expected it would be a "lame duck" in the quarter but the expanding distribution allowed it to continue at a triple-digit growth rate (142% in fact, the highest quarterly growth rate since 2009).

So the question for this quarter is, as always, what's the iPhone growth? The problem for me is that I have to choose between two assumptions:

1. Due to distribution and dual product strategy (n-1 variant) production has now become more consistent.
2. This quarter is the actual transition quarter when iPhone 4 production is throttled down in favor of the new model.

The first assumption would put the iPhone growth at 100%+ while the second would place it in the 60% to 80% range. I decided to dial in a figure somewhere in between at 90% but I'm not very confident in this until we see more evidence that a new pattern has emerged.

So here are my "mid" quarter forecasts:

• iPhone units: 26.8 million (90%)
• Macs: 4.8 million (23%)
• iPads: 10.5 million (150%)
• iPods: 7.0 million (-22%)
• Music (incl. app) rev. growth: 30%
• Peripherals rev. growth: 23%
• Software rev. growth: 32%
• Total revenues: $33.2 billion (growth: 63%)
• GM: 41.8%
• EPS: $9.05 (95%)

Three years ago the company's share price was trading at a P/E ratio of about 35. The above estimate and today's price implies that's it's trading at the same multiple but the Earnings is measured over one quarter not one year.

As @Patricklgoe noted on Twitter: the post-PC era for Apple means it's the post-P/E era as well.

The violence with which new platforms have displaced incumbent mobile vendor fortunes continues to surprise.

• Nokia's Symbian platform has gone from 47% share to 16% in three years
• Microsoft's phone platforms have gone from 12% to 1%
• Other platforms have gone from 21% to zero
• Although far less dramatic, RIM's decline from 17% to 12%  is causing acute pain and anxiety

This while entrants have grown share in spectacular fashion:

• Android from zero to 48% (A two year period)
• iOS from 2% to 19%
• Bada from zero to 4% (two quarters only)

 

The picture of platform share over time looks like this:

 

The platform volume growth is shown in the following graph:

Shocking

Or is it?

The surprising thing is that it should not be surprising. When the iPhone re-defined the basis of competition (at the beginning of the time frame of these charts) it unleashed forces which are still spinning the industry into a new configuration.

In that context, Android is a natural consequence. As iPhone created a threat, the response from all other vendors (other than Nokia and RIM) was to seek something that would sustain their business. Android was salvation.

It enabled the pursuit of better margins and hence better returns. So much so that Android offers the escape up-market they have always sought. It enables vendors to abandon the profit-free feature phones to low-end entrants like ZTE and Huawei.

LG, Samsung, Motorola and Sony Ericsson all took the bait. They are racing as quickly as possible to turn their feature phone portfolios into Android portfolios. This is certainly something that Google also wants to see happen and has been planning all along.

However one of the consequences of the modular (aka "open") approach is that the low end disruptors gobbling up low-end share are also motivated to move into the Android business as soon as it comes within reach.  The only reliably predictable consequence of Android will be the postponement of displacement of the existing brands by the low-end entrants.

Is this fate unavoidable for all brands?

Clearly some vendors see the trap. For all its apparent failings, Nokia saw this outcome and chose to attempt a "Hail Mary Pass" with Microsoft. The strategic point being that because they no longer had faith in their ability to execute on an independent platform, they would pick a platform that gave them at least some control or leverage. There are serious risks and problems with this approach--something which has been covered here already--but the bet being made is a clear rejection of the slippery Android slope.

RIM is trying to resist with QNX which is a similar approach but timing may also be the undoing of this strategy. HP's approach with WebOS and Samsung's Bada are also hedges to avoid this fate.

And what about Apple?

Apple is always skating in a different direction. iOS needs to be seen as not so much a phone platform but a computing platform. Given what we know, iOS was always conceived as the future of computing. Voice, after all, is just an app on iOS. So my expectation is that Apple's iOS will continue its attack on the mobile computing market, skimming (or carving as the case may be) profits from the phone business to sustain its ultimate target of reclaiming the computing universe.

By this thinking iOS lives only by improving more rapidly than anything else in dimensions that redefine the basis of performance. In other words, doing more of what the iPhone did in the first place to set off this disruption.

As Verizon has reported iPhone sales for one and a half quarters, it's time to try to discern the impact on the product. There were several hypotheses floating around prior to the "big bang" of Verizon.

Some assumed that there would be a large migration away from AT&T and that AT&T iPhone sales would slump. Others that there would be no Verizon iPhones volumes at all because there were so many Android users already converted. There were also suggestions that the iPhone would explode in growth with two major operators carrying it.

What really happened?

The first chart shows historic AT&T activation with Verizon activations added. It also shows sales to "none of the above", namely non-US sales of iPhones[1].

AT&T iPhone activations show no significant impact from Verizon and Verizon itself shows a modest start to sales[2]. What did not happen is an exodus from AT&T. We also did not see a rejection of the iPhone by Verizon customers long exposed to anti-iPhone Droid advertising. We also did not see a considerable impact of Verizon on growth.

Verizon did contribute (4.5 million Verizon iPhone users is nothing to sneeze at)  but the contribution was to a degree that was nowhere near a big bang.

That was because the real big bang was from the rest of the world. The same data in the first chart is shown below as a stacked area chart and a share chart. Had Verizon not come on board the business would still have grown year-on-year over 100% (and sequentially).

The US activations have been decreasing as a percent of total iPhones sold. Before Verizon came online, the US share was decreasing (from an average of 45% share in 2008 to 33% in 2010). After Verizon, the US continues to slide to an average of 30% share (two quarters).

 After waiting nearly four years, American observers of the iPhone could perhaps be excused for their obsession on the impact of expirated AT&T exclusivity. But the real impact is that by the time it came, it was moot.

It would be a mistake to look upon Q1 and Q2 and say that the explosive growth was due to Verizon or the end of US exclusivity.

The global market is far greater than the US and the iPhone business has simply grown to reflect that.

 

 

---

Notes

1. Non-US sales are total iPhones sold minus activations in the US. There is the possibility that some of the unactivated phones were activated on T-Mobile or that there is some delay between purchase, channel inventory and activation, but the time frame shown should smooth out any of the noise.
2. What we don't know is what was the impact of iPhone sales start on Verizon's other smartphone platforms. Unfortunately, Verizon does not report overall smartphone sales/activations so we can't conclude directly that iPhone has slowed other platforms on Verizon. Some other data (NPD, Changewave, ComScore) do indicate some slowing in Android growth in the US but we have no definitive data to prove it.

Here were my predictions for the third fiscal (second calendar) quarter from April 25th.

Estimates for Apple’s third fiscal quarter (ending June) | asymco

Later in the quarter I updated them for submission to Philip Elmer-Dewitt's blog at Fortune. The original and updated figures are shown in the following table (with actuals).

The changes were not significant except in a reduction of iPads. Three items were better in the early call and three were better in the late with one item equal. Using a simple method for scoring the results I gave myself the following report card:

 

As the Revenue and EPS figures are dependent on the other line items, the most significant error is clearly the iPhone where the error was over 30% (and hence deserves an F). The other figures were not very close either  so the overall grade point average is a very mediocre C (2.3).

So, as in previous quarters, nailing the iPhone number is everything. Having failed to guess correctly, the whole performance fell apart.

So how did I manage to get the iPhone number so wrong?

My forecasts depend on a few theories:

1. Overall production capacity is increasing at approximately 100%/yr.
2. There is significant seasonality due to production ramps as the product is updated on a yearly cycle. These cycles are tuned to reach maximum throughput during the US holiday period. I discussed this theory here.
3. Demand is practically unlimited and is throttled by both production schedule and distribution agreements

I successfully applied these theories to the iPhone for over three years and it has always yielded very good (above average at least) results. However, when we reach a point of failure we need forensically consider where the theories failed.

What I suspect happened is that the second theory no longer holds. What I expected was that as the iPhone 4 was reaching the end of its cycle, growth would moderate (as it did last year with the 3GS and we ended up with 61% growth into the last quarter). The reason growth would moderate was that Apple slowed production of the old model in order to switch out to the new model--we saw the same thing happen with the slowdown in iPad 1 and transition to iPad 2.

Instead, what Apple did this year was open the taps on production of the iPhone 4 as it extended its lifetime beyond the traditional 12 months. In other words, the pipeline was not "drained" ahead of a new ramp. Distribution was also boosted with a burst of new operator deals which actually enlarged the pipeline.

So we are witnessing a pivotal moment in the product's strategy. By slightly lifting off the gas in terms of product cycle, Apple actually set the iPhone loose. The imposition of a yearly cycle on the product coupled with unlimited demand caused it to be artificially constrained.

So I can only reach a conclusion dripping with irony: by stepping off the gas the product actually accelerated.

This phenomenon will allow the company to unleash a wave of unprecedented growth which might claim another theory as victim. Namely, is the limit of 100% growth about to be breached?

----

Footnote:

A theory approach to forecasting means that you have to stay true to the theory even if there is anecdotal evidence that may suggest you are wrong. If you bend to the anecdotes then you will not learn from failure. If you stick with the theory and ask where it went wrong, you will build a better theory.

Apple's second calendar quarter was a record breaking performance. This is surprising because it shows super-seasonal performance. For as long as I can remember the fourth calendar quarter (i.e. holiday) was always the strongest quarter, by a large margin. This quarter was higher than the last holiday quarter. A glance at the following chart shows the anomalous performance:

iOS products make up 71% of sales (and at least 78% of profits) which makes the following growth scorecard a bit moot.

The growth in iPhone sales of 150% is hard to understand given the previous product cycle, but more about this later. The 122% growth in profits is (nearly) unprecedented. The growth in Q3 2008 was due to the launch of the iPhone 3GS and since there was no iPhone launch this quarter the growth shatters existing assumptions about the franchise.

The pattern in the table above is shown in the following chart:

This performance needs to be digested and contemplated a bit longer but I will make one early conclusion: One of the most common themes during the last year was that Apple's growth rate was unsustainable. The theory cited was one of the "law of large numbers". Apple's performance shows it to be nonsense.

Instead of decelerating, Apple's growth is accelerating.

 

 

Almost all valuation models for Apple assume it's a hardware company. The modeling algorithm for hardware is simple:

• For each year in near future
• For each product line
• Compute contribution
• Determine company value by summing contributions and multiplying by a P/E ratio

The major difficulty is in predicting the growth of each product line. This is difficult because buyers can be fickle. Companies employs all sorts of tools in order to secure repeat customers but if switching costs are low, the company can crash in value. For this reason, analysts pick various ways to predict device  sales. Some choose to index each product on production (channel checks), demand (customer surveys,)  or even on a top-down share of total (market research on growth of whole market and assumptions of share).

Although simple and convenient, this model does not probably match the way Apple is managed. The company does not build hardware products to sell and forget. It builds platforms which are best seen as sources of recurring revenues. Users are incentivized to continue buying devices. iCloud, iTunes and other Apple properties are expressly designed to that goal--and they are not cheap to run. So, the company must see the world through a different set of lenses than the default model shown above.

To think about the business like they do, we need to put the data through a similar set of lenses. I began with a modest proposal last month to value each user as a source of recurring revenue. Now it's time to expand on this method.

The following chart shows the recurring revenues per user by product and the current and possible future size of user bases.[2]

Revenues/yr/user are bars with the left axis and the User bases are various colored circles indexed with the right axis.

The assumptions that went into the data are as follows:

1. Device life span is as per previous article linked above
2. User base growth for 1 year is: Mac 20%, iPhone 80%, iTunes 10%, iPod 30%, iPad 100%
3. User base growth for 2nd and 3rd years (recurring): Mac 20%, iPhone 50%, iTunes 10%, iPod 20%, iPad 80%.
4. The Revenue per user is assumed constant

Note that the user base growth figures are lower than the product growth levels seen historically. Obviously, the model is highly sensitive to these growth assumptions so they need to be scrutinized and tested rigorously.

Nevertheless, as a straw-man proposal,  the recurring revenues for all these products[1] is shown in the following chart:

Once the income is estimated, we can take that value and assume a profit margin (net) and then multiply the earnings by a multiple. Using a 20% net margin and 12x P/E yields the following chart.

(I added an assumed level of cash in green.)

This model would imply that the company today could be valued at $208 billion on the basis of its installed base alone. That value would be about $323 billion in one year and $620 billion in three years. Dividing by the number of shares outstanding (935m this year increasing at 2% a year) yields a share price of $222, $339 and $629 by mid 2014.

These values can be considered "lower bounds" on valuation since they assume income from previously secured customers. The speculative part of investment would be based on what the future bases will look like (so, for example, if one believes these assumptions, the $629 figure could be considered a target to be discounted to today).

---

Notes:

1. Excludes Software, Peripherals, non-iOS devices, and any other service revenue.
2. Compare this char to social media companies (MIT Technology Review)

The following chart shows the net gains in users for the major mobile platforms in the US. The data is derived from comScore's MobiLens report.

The raw numbers for the last period (ending May) are:

1. Android gained 2.1 million users
2. iPhone gained 1.0 million users
3. WebOS/PalmOS lost 96k users
4. Blackberry lost 202k users
5. "Other" lost about 95k users

The "churn" or percent of smartphone users who switched platforms is 1.22%/month  of the overall users (assuming users to left one platform moved to another rather than to non-smart devices.)

The share of the platforms and the overall composition of users is shown in the following two charts:

As usual, caution should be exercised when looking at share (top chart) outside the context of overall growth. The second chart may be more illustrative of what is happening. The light blue area on top is the smartphone non-consuming population.

Android has been a tremendous accelerant of smartphone adoption while iOS has grown as well but share has not grown significantly. iPhone growth has kept up with market growth. This cannot be said for the other platforms which have been "squeezed" between these two entrants.

So although the main competition is with non-consuming users and smartphones are winning in general, the loss of users by some of the incumbents is unsettling.

Microsoft lost just over 2 million users in the US last year while RIM lost a net of 1.5 million. Palm lost about half a million. Contrast this with 8.5 million iPhone additions and 23 million new Android users.

In particular, Windows Mobile/Phone is down to 5.8 million users (down from 18m in December 2009). With a loss of half a million per month, and share down to 4.5%, a lot is riding on the new platform.

I've argued that the post-PC era will be a multi-platform era. Although it may seem that the situation in the US is rapidly moving toward a duopoly, it may not end up that way. Note how much non-consumption still exists.

Note the time frame of the charts is only 18 months. The rapidity with which platforms gain ground could allow for continuing platform churn.

Ever since the iPhone launched four years ago (to the day), the question on everyone's mind has been: When will Apple expand the portfolio to reach into all market segments? I remember thinking in 2007 whether it would be in six months or a year that they would create a "mini", "nano" and "classic" line-up which served them so well with the iPod.

Apple however took a different approach. To their credit, they focused on the platform and built a consistent experience around a fixed screen size to nurture an ecosystem. They also improved the power of the device so that experience would improve to be better and more robust. In other words, they treated every iPhone as not being good enough, needful of every megahertz of power, every pixel of screen and every minute of battery life. They polished the OS constantly and added APIs by the thousands.

In other words, they acted like a computer software company, not like a "device vendor" or like a handset manufacturer which was everyone's (including mine) frame of reference.

Having expanded from iPhone to iOS and built the platform into non-cellular centric computers like iPad and iPod touch, they clearly showed a nonchalance about the operator channel and the amplification power it offers (an amplification which comes with a hefty price of dependency and strategic illusion.)

But the mind always wonders back to the question of portfolio. Now that the product is maturing, the hardware is getting nearly "good enough". Perhaps even Apple might now consider letting go of the "frontier" of what's technologically possible and consider expanding its reach to the broader audiences it has willfully kept out of reach.

And broad they are.

Based on data published by Deutsche Bank and the ITU, we can calculate roughly how many customers Apple's current iPhone positioning has left unserved. I chose to use pre-paid/post-paid split as a proxy for unaddressed/addressed. This is an imperfect proxy but a pretty good one as most pre-paid subs see a full price for the iPhone (retail around $700 to $1000) vs. post-paid customers seeing a price of $200 or below. The $200 happens to be an important psychological price inflection point where volumes increase dramatically.

The first chart shows the global split between pre-/post-paid subscribers as of 2010. Roughly 1.5 billion are post-paid and 3.7 billion are pre-paid. That means that nearly 70% of the world is not being addressed by the iPhone as it currently stands. Put another way, a shift in positioning might result in a 250% increase in addressable market.

Tim Cook alluded to this in the last conference call when he said pre-paid markets, especially in China, are huge with share figures "starting with a nine". He also said separately that they would not be ceding any market--a hint if there ever was one, given the broadening of Android into previously feature-phone price bands.[1]

We can even see the situation more clearly on a regional scale. The following chart shows the same pre-/post-paid split by region.

You can visualize the iPhone having spent the last four years penetrating into the blue areas of the chart through the expansion of carrier agreements. With half the US & Canada area being finally filled in this year, most of the blue is now more-or-less within reach.

Given the constraints on production, and given the improvements in the product and the improvements in the hardware (learning curves and price points) it may mean that Apple could finally be turning its attention to those orange areas.

The time may be soon at hand that maturity coupled with limits of organic growth are leading the four-year-old iPhone to finally be re-defined as more than a post-paid skimming entrant. It may be time for the iPhone to more than just grow. It may be time for it to grow up and take on the whole market. Five billion people are waiting.

---

Notes:

1. Contrary to a commonly held belief, Apple does not shy away from market share. In the case of the iPod and even the original Apple 2, the company sought and obtained the top share ranking. In fact, the decision to pursue share vs profit is "context sensitive". Steve Jobs, at least, thinks so.

Технологии и наука | Хорацио Дедиу: Никой не иска да купи Research In Motion RIM - Капитал.

My thanks again to Andrian Georgiev for interview questions [Bulgarian] related to RIM. My answers to his questions (in English) are below:

Q: What should RIM do to reinvent itself? Should it stray from its business-oriented image?

RIM had begun to move away from a business image already in 2005 or so when it started its "Pearl" brand and a consumer-oriented strategy. The company probably foresaw that business customers would not be enough to maintain the growth they had become accustomed to. The strategy has led to a growing popularity in Latin America and other regions like the Middle East where the product is used as a low-cost alternative to SMS for avid texters. Even in the US, many teenagers use Blackberries instead of iPhones because they can use it for the BBM service (at a lower cost). I believe that it is not coincidence that iMessage was launched.

The company's salvation is not in branching into new markets but in establishing a credible platform. When Nokia announced that they would be the "third option" after the iPhone and Android ecosystems, they did not even mention the Blackberry. The fact that Blackberry is not seen as an ecosystem is the root of the problem.

Q: How should RIM accelerate the introduction of QNX?

QNX is a solid operating system and I believe RIM should have begun developing with it much earlier. By waiting long after the iPhone launched (and even after Android) to upgrade its OS, RIM missed a great opportunity. The foothold market the company had was wasted by not leveraging it into building a mobile computing ecosystem.

There is little that can be done to move any more rapidly now. Product development cannot be done any faster. What the company could do is to very carefully define why QNX based products are better than the competition and not rely on specifications. In other words, what jobs does their platform solve for users that current solutions don't address? I note that this is the problem with the Playbook. It's not differentiated on what it does to improve the life of the user.

Q: Should RIM move on with just one CEO?

The problem is not the number of managers but their view of the world. What would benefit the company is a better marketing manager where marketing is defined as understanding of user needs. Engineering expertise is not enough.

Q: What would you advice RIM to do in terms of R&D?

RIM is an engineering led company. Many successful companies rightly develop their engineering skills first because that is what allows them to create new products more quickly. This is true of Nokia and also of Apple and Microsoft in their early years. What is difficult is to allow marketing people to define products after that early phase. This is partly due to the fact that there is less respect for "Marketing" among engineers. Many see it as a "soft" discipline where there is little rigor. But this is not an accurate or fair picture. Great marketing determines what products should be built not just how they should be sold. Engineering can discover new products based on new technology becoming available, but Marketing can discover new products based on unmet user needs. Both need each other.

My advice would be to allow a way for R&D to absorb input from marketing.

Q: Do you think that RIM could be bought by a bigger company in the short-term?

Mature companies are usually bought for their assets and not so much for their vision or priorities. The opposite is true for young companies who are selling themselves to the public via IPOs. For young companies the vision or priorities of business models is seen as more important. When companies are only valued for their assets, they are usually very under-valued. When companies are only valued for their vision, they are usually over-valued.

RIM's challenge is that nobody believes they have any vision and their assets are weak (no good ecosystem as I pointed out above.) So the price anybody would pay for RIM today would probably be far lower than what management thinks it's worth. And since they are still profitable they won't sell the company at a deep discount.

So my guess is that we won't see any acquisition soon.

The iPhone is now available in the US unlocked. Judging by the lack of reaction to the news, one would assume that this is not a significant event. I would argue however that it's a very significant event.

What is unappreciated is that the iPhone is a very restricted product. Unlike any of Apple's other products (iPod, Mac and iPad), the iPhone is designed to be hard to get. Apple did not make it easy in the one dimension of ease that matters most: its purchase.

Consider that many people in the world cannot buy an iPhone because it's not available locally. In case it is, in most cases you need to sign a contract and commit to a long-term relationship with a company other than Apple. In those cases where you don't sign a contract, you cannot use it with a service provider other than the one (arbitrarily) chosen for you.

A few have been able to buy iPhones unlocked if they lived in a few countries (UK, France, Australia, Belgium, Hong Kong[1]) but those phones could only be purchased online if sent to a local address or in an Apple retail store--of which there are not many.

Consider that in Europe alone, the following countries do not have iPhone distribution: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia, Georgia, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Serbia and Ukraine. The populations total over 100 million people. In Asia the number of countries without iPhone distribution outnumber those with distribution. Add in Africa, Latin America and the Middle East and the unaddressed market begins to look very large.

If you contrast this with every other phone platform out there, Blackberry, Android or Symbian, the iPhone is extremely restricted and the number of people that are permitted to buy it much more limited. The number of operators supporting Blackberry outnumber the iPhone at least by a ratio of two to one.

Then there is the matter of distributors. This is a channel that iPhone does not leverage. Distributors account for more than half of Nokia's volumes. They buy in bulk and resell (sometimes illegally or in violation of contracts) vast quantities of phones.

By offering unlocked iPhones in the US, the restriction on distribution is lifted to a large degree. What's different is that these phones can be purchased in 200+ retail locations. Many of these locations are in tourist hubs where there are large diaspora communities rotating continuously back to home countries. iPhones can now be purchased with cash and become as good as cash.

And this is not a new phenomenon. When the original iPhone was available, Apple had to restrict buyers to 5 per person and stopped accepting cash because of the huge grey market demand. The same thing happened with the original iPad and with iPad 2 lines are still forming for it because distribution is so restricted. Consider also that sales in Verizon stores pale in comparison with those for GSM products.

The way to think about it is that the iPhone has just become more "liquid" and it can now flow to parts of the world where it has been difficult to acquire. The iPhone was already liquid to some degree with unlocking and sales through Hong Kong/UK, but the US market's retail footprint and the lower costs that result will boost liquidity dramatically and probably increase volumes substantially.

---

Note:

1. According to Apple, the following 27 countries offer phones which are not "locked to carrier" : Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Russia, Slovakia, Turkey, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, South Korea, Macau, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, South Africa

Speaking of boats, there were recent claims that the iPhone is "dead in the water". As someone who has done some sailing I can say that being dead in the water is dangerous. Not only are you not going anywhere but you also don't have steering control. It's movement through the water that allows a rudder to work so being stationary means that you can't orient the boat when waves or wind might threaten stability.

This implied inability to gain directional control is what makes the accusation so powerful. How valid is it? That claim certainly was not made because the iPhone did not grow. iPhone grew at 113% year on year. It even grew sequentially in a post-holiday quarter and the growth is not slowing materially.

The claim was made that iPhone was not gaining share. But share of what? If we look at the iPhone share of all phones and share of smartphones, it's still growing. It reached 5% share of all phones sold in the quarter and fourth most popular vendor in the world. Beating RIM, HTC, Motorola, Sony Ericsson and ZTE.

So what makes the iPhone dead in the water?

The claim was made relative to the (a) share of (b) mobile platforms (c) installed base (d) in the US. In other words, if one adds all Android phones in use vs. the iPhones in use in the US (while ignoring iOS devices other than iPhone) while the market is growing at nearly triple digit rates, then the iPhone is not gaining (much) share.

That's the most obtuse way of suggesting a slowing product. If something is dead in the water, it isn't going anywhere or making any progress.

On a unit basis and one the basis of vendor comparison, iPhone is doing very well. On the basis of value capture and profitability it's doing even better. More about that later.