Simon Sharwood pulls together some shipment numbers to put VR headset shipments in context.
The tl;dr on annual shipments: 9.2m VR headsets, vs. 135.6m wearbles, vs. ~1.5bn smartphones.
VR headsets have a runrate of, like, 9.2m units:
Virtual reality headsets are moving at a rate of 2.3 million a quarter
But, fast growing:
IDC says shipments are up 77.4 per cent year over year.
Meanwhile, wearables are at something like “33.9 million shipments a month,” like a runrate of 135.6m units.
Meanwhile, taking from this year’s Internet Trends report (sourced from Morgan Stanley), smart phone shipments are under 1.5bn, though slowing in growth:
And then smartphone shipments from IDC (probably where Morgan got those numbers):
For the full year [of 2016], the worldwide smartphone market saw a total of 1.47 billion units shipped, marking the highest year of shipments on record, yet up only 2.3% from the 1.44 billion units shipped in 2015.
Source: Virtual reality headsets even less popular than wearable devices
A single wide-body Boeing 747 can easily carry 150,000 iPhones tucked into its aluminum canisters.
From An iPhone’s Journey, From the Factory Floor to the Retail Store
More than 80 percent of India is reached by a new 4G mobile network called Jio — bankrolled by India’s richest man — which will be free to use until the end of the year. The price will jump to at least $2.25 per month next year, but the rock bottom price is a play to undercut competitors for the market.
Source: Significant Digits For Wednesday, Sept. 7, 2016
Under the new plan, the Bellevue, Wash.-based wireless company will charge $70/month for the first line, $50/month for the second, and $20/month for additional lines up to eight, if the customer has auto-pay enabled. That averages to $40/month for a family of four, the company notes.
I’ll gave to check into that/
Source: T-Mobile shifting entirely to unlimited data in new bid to shake up industry
There’s some proper, and surprisingly concise deal analysis over there:
While growth has come from the IoT, ARM’s resurgence in recent years – and Intel’s opposite trajectory – have been the result of the London company’s dominance in mobile devices. (In 2015, “45% of the ARM-based chips went into mobile devices.”) The so-called Wintel monopoly carried both of those parties to valuations that ARM never approached, but as mobile steadily eroded PC spend ARM’s low power designs found success on both of the most successful mobile platforms. Both Apple’s iOS devices and Android’s array of hardware are either exclusively or nearly so ARM-based.
Check out the rest!
Meanwhile, from John Abbott at 451 Research:
- ARM “generated less than $1.5bn in revenue last year and has only 3,300 employee”
- “SoftBank will pay 20.9x trailing revenue for ARM. That’s the first time any company has cracked the 20x mark in a $1bn-plus chip acquisition.”
- ARM “holds a 40% share in consumer goods, 30% in embedded intelligence, 15% in network infrastructure and 10% in automotive.”
- “Revenue reached $1.49bn in 2015, up 15% from the previous year, with a net profit of $360.7m.”
- Read more for his overall sentiment, which is basically: SoftBanks’ money and reach can fuel faster marketshare growth in these convert all the toasters to IoT grills times. checks out.
“That doesn’t remotely mean that Microsoft is dead, but it has to work out how to use the cash and market position of the legacy monopolies to help it build new businesses.”
Source: 16 mobile theses
With consumer SaaSes and mobile apps coming and going, I’ve been thinking of the idea of “disposable software”: apps that last a year or so, but aren’t guaranteed to last longer. In the consumer space, there’s rarely been a guarantee that free software will last – that’s part of the “price” you pay for free.
This mentality is getting into business software more and more, however, and I don’t think “enterprises” are prepared for it. Part of the premium you pay for enterprise software should include the guarantee that it will have a longer life-cycle, but it’s worth asking if it does.
Also, it’s good for enterprises to be aware of vendors, particularly open source driven ones, are putting out code that might be “disposable.” The prevailing product management think nowadays encourages experimenting and trying things out: abandoning “failed” experiments and continuing successful ones. Clearly, if you’re a “normal” enterprise, you want to avoid those failed experiments and, at best, properly control and govern your use of them.
Of course, there are trade-offs:
- With consumer, experiment-driven software, you’re always getting the newest thinking, which might turn out to be a good idea and provide your business with differentiating, “secret sauce”; or it might be a failed experiment that gets canceled
- With “enterprise,” stable software you can generally count on it existing and being supported next year; but you’ll often be behind the curve on innovation, meaning you’ll have to layer on the “secret sauce” on your own.
It’s good to engage with both types of strategies, you just have manage the approach to hedge the risks of each.