Pages

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Apple Lawyer Tells Jury Samsung Concluded 'It's Easier to Copy' - San Francisco Chronicle

Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. made initial pitches to a U.S. jury in their global battle over smartphone patents, with the iPhone maker alleging its designs were copied and the South Korean company countering that Apple can’t claim a “monopoly on a rectangle.”

Apple’s lawyer alleged in opening arguments yesterday at a trial in federal court in San Jose, California, that Samsung infringed the touch-screen characteristics of the iPhone after it was released in 2007. Samsung’s attorney downplayed the significance of Apple’s iPhone innovations by saying other companies had received patents for similarly minimalist designs.

“As we all know it’s easier to copy than to innovate,” Harold McElhinny, Apple’s lawyer, told the jury.

The jury trial is the first U.S. in a battle being waged on four continents for dominance in a smartphone market valued by Bloomberg Industries at $219.1 billion. Apple and Samsung are the world’s largest makers of the high-end handheld devices that blend the functionality of a phone and a computer.

Each company is trying to convince jurors that its rival infringed patents covering designs and technology for mobile devices, with potential damages awards reaching billions of dollars.

Business Competition

Samsung’s attorney, Charles K. Verhoeven, said that while the company was “inspired” by the iPhone, he said that’s a natural part of business competition, just as each company performs a detailed analysis whenever a rival product is released.

“Being inspired by a good product and seeking to make even better products is called competition,” Verhoeven said. “It’s not copying and it’s not infringing. Everybody does it in the commercial marketplace.”

Apple’s lawyer said the similarities between its iPhone and iPad and Samsung’s smartphones and tablets go beyond that accepted practice. McElhinny showed the jury a slide depicting internal Samsung discussions about making changes to its devices to match those of the iPhone and iPad.

He also displayed photos of Samsung’s mobile phones from 2006 with physical keyboards and squared corners, and another of its phones from 2010 with rounded edges and a glass touch- screen. Samsung arrived at the newer design only after Apple founder Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone in 2007, the lawyer said.

User-Interface

McElhinny outlined the history and risk that Apple took in developing the iPhone, including developing a new user-interface and introducing a touch-screen glass front screen. While the device was a hit, its success wasn’t a sure thing with companies like Nokia Oyj, Motorola Inc. and Suwon, South Korea-based Samsung dominating the market, the attorney said. If the debut had been a flop, it “could have ended the company’s future,” the attorney said.

One patent in dispute involves how the screen bounces back when a user scrolls to the end of a Web page or picture. Samsung adopted a similar feature for its smartphones, Apple claims. Another patent at issue covers the use of two fingers to zoom in on a picture or document, a feature that Cupertino, California- based Apple alleges Samsung copied.

McElhinny said that Samsung in June 2010 introduced the Galaxy Si9000 smartphone, the first in the Galaxy line, which he called “a complete iPhone clone.” That led to U.S. sales of 22 million mobile phones and tablet computers which generated $2 billion in “profit that they made using our intellectual property.”

Close Partners

In addition to being rivals, Apple and Samsung also are close partners. Samsung supplies components to Apple for semiconductors and high-definition screens. McElhinny said that business relationship led Apple to confront Samsung about the alleged infringements before filing a lawsuit.

“Apple did not sit quietly by when Samsung started infringing Apple products,” McElhinny told jurors. “Apple met with Samsung to point out that Samsung was acting illegally and demand that Samsung come up with its own designs and user interface.” That had “no positive effect,” he said.

Verhoeven disputed Apple’s claims that it’s copying, pointing to patents from before the iPhone’s release by companies including LG that show a rectangular shape and a glass screen. He also said Samsung provides 20 percent of the component technology inside the iPhone.

At the outset of his opening argument, Verhoeven showed the jury a slide showing that before the iPhone was introduced, Samsung made different types of mobile phones -- including some that he said were “rectangular in shape, with rounded corners, that had touch screens on them.” The company continues to manufacture those same types of phones, he said.

‘More Sophisticated’

“As the guts of these phones got more sophisticated, you can do more things,” Verhoeven said. “The entire industry moved this way. Is that infringement? The evidence is going to show, no, it’s competition. It’s providing the consumer what the consumer wants.”

He argued that Apple was inspired by Sony Corp., pointing to e-mails among members of Apple’s design team discussing how the iPhone’s original design compared to a Sony design.

Apple’s demand for $2.5 billion in damages is based on claims Samsung copied the iPhone and iPad. Apple also wants to make permanent a preliminary ban it won on U.S. sales of a Samsung tablet computer, and extend the ban to Samsung smartphones.

Samsung also is alleging in a countersuit that Apple is infringing two patents covering mobile-technology standards and three utility patents. Samsung says the patents related to data transition and other technology and contends they are essential for making any mobile phone work. The company is demanding royalties of as much as 2.4 percent for each device sold, according to a court filing.

‘Neat Things’

Verhoeven said that in contrast to Apple’s design-focused claims, Samsung’s patents are more sophisticated than “little neat things you can do on a touch-screen.”

Apple’s first witness was Christopher Stringer, a designer at the company for 17 years, who said he typically works with a group of 15 or 16 designers around a kitchen table having a “brutally honest circle of debate” until they are comfortable with a product.

McElhinny asked Stringer about the inspiration for the iPhone.

“We were looking for a new original and beautiful object, something that would really wow the world,” Stringer testified. “We wanted to create something that seemed so wonderful you can’t imagine how you’d follow it.”

Apple designers spent “years” trying to create the “most simple, purest manifestation of what that can be -- something that people can love.”

One of 10 jurors in the case was granted her request to be dismissed yesterday after telling the judge her employer wouldn’t pay her while she was away from work. That juror, an insurance agent, was one of the three women serving on the panel.

The trial is scheduled to run through late August.

The case is Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 11- cv-01846, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).

--With assistance from Susan Decker in Washington. Editors: Peter Blumberg, Stephen Farr

To contact the reporters on this story: Joel Rosenblatt in San Francisco at jrosenblatt@bloomberg.net; Adam Satariano in San Francisco at asatariano1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net


Blog: Better LTE Than Never - MobileTechReview.com


Rumors are emerging that Apple will announce the latest iPhone, which the press has tentatively dubbed the iPhone 5, on September 12, which is just a little over a month away. Every iPhone so far has been a smash hit, and the iPhone 5 will undoubtedly be the coolest, greatest iPhone ever - but I'm worried about its sales.

Why would I say something so crazy? The reason has nothing to do with the phone itself. It is widely expected that one of the phone's biggest selling points is that it will probably be the first iPhone model to include Long Term Evolution (LTE) wireless, which was added to the iPad line earlier this year. LTE is true 4G, and it provides far faster download and upload speeds than any previous cellular technology. Just one problem: if you want to enjoy all that LTE speed, you need to connect to an LTE network.

In the United States, the iPhone was exclusive to AT&T for the first five years, and as a result, many iPhone customers are either loyal to AT&T or just plain shackled to them via contract. Would you like to know how many markets have AT&T LTE coverage at this writing? 51.

(You can view AT&T's coverage map here by clicking on "Coverage;" only the orange dots are LTE.)

There are over 19,000 cities in the United States. 19,000 minus 51 equals "Uh-oh." The iPhone 5 may have other great features (rumors include a larger screen, faster processor, and enhanced camera), but can you really imagine people lining up in droves if Apple says, "The new iPhone is fantastic! It has an amazing new flagship feature! You can't use it!"

All of this is speculation since nothing about the "iPhone 5" has actually been announced, but there's a good chance that if your city doesn't have LTE, the iPhone 5 will be a much more modest upgrade over the existing iPhone 4S.

Yes, you could defect to Verizon. Verizon is one carrier that has made better choices in terms of rolling out its LTE network much more quickly. This may work for some people, but nonetheless there are some parts of the US where Verizon's coverage isn't as good as AT&T's, plus there are all the hassles of paying an ETF, porting your number, and setting up an account with a whole new company.

Sprint is even further behind on LTE than AT&T, but at least they have a semi-excuse: they simply backed the wrong 4G standard. Early on, Sprint invested time and technology into the competing 4G option WiMax, which is, quite frankly, slower than 3G. To its credit, Sprint has all but admitted this was a mistake, and they are now abandoning it in favor of LTE, but they certainly have some catching up to do.

T-Mobile also lacks LTE, but since they don't have the iPhone either, that isn't really a factor here.

But why doesn't AT&T have LTE? The iPhone has been a tremendous cash cow for AT&T. LTE would be a great way for AT&T to use some of that cash to attract even more iPhone customers, satisfy existing ones, and relieve some of that network congestion AT&T constantly complains of since LTE uses bandwidth more efficiently than 3G standards do. Not to mention the potential for job creation with upgrading its infrastructure. So it turns out AT&T's reason for being so far behind in rolling out its LTE network is… I have no idea.

As a matter of fact, the only specific timeframe AT&T has announced for LTE is that they expect their nationwide network to be ready by the end of 2013. That means the "iPhone 6" could be out before your city gets AT&T LTE.

AT&T runs ads that boast "the nation's largest 4G network." AT&T makes this claim by paying marketing experts to put in extra hours coming up with innovative new ways to rename existing 3G technologies as "4G." Gee, thanks, AT&T. But for those of us who are excited about the new iPhone and want to see it become another smashing success for Apple, the obvious question remains:

Where the heck is AT&T's LTE network?

-----------------------------------------------------

Read our latest iPhone and iPad Game Reviews at:
http://www.mobiletechreview.com/iPhone-game-reviews.htm

--------------------
Chief iPod Correspondent
Senior Time Waster
Extreme Moderator
Moderate Extremist
Captain of the Planet Express
Assistant Jedi Librarian
--------------------

Apple: Samsung Copied iPhone's 'Entire Design And User Experience' - Huffington Post

Apple Samsung Trial

SAN JOSE, Calif. â€" An attorney for Apple told a jury Tuesday that bitter rival Samsung faced two options to compete in the booming cellphone market after Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone to critical acclaim in 2007: Innovate or copy.

Samsung chose to copy, making its smartphones and computer tablets illegal knockoffs of Apple's popular products, attorney Harold McElhinny claimed.

Samsung "has copied the entire design and user experience" of Apple's iPhone and iPad, McElhinny told a jury during his opening statement at the patent trial involving the world's two largest makers of cellphones.

In his opening statement, Samsung attorney Charles Verhoeven countered that the South Korean company employs thousands of designers and spends billions of dollars on research and development to create new products.

"Samsung is not some copyist, some Johnny-come-lately doing knockoffs," he said.

Verhoeven asserted that Apple is like many other companies that use similar technology and designs to satisfy consumer demands for phones and other devices that play music and movies and take photographs.

For example, he said several other companies and inventors have filed patent applications for the rounded, rectangular shape associated with Apple products.

"Everyone is out there with that basic form factor," Verhoeven said. "There is nothing wrong with looking at what your competitors do and being inspired by them."

A verdict in Apple's favor could lead to banishment of Samsung's Galaxy products from the U.S. market, said Mark A. Lemley, a professor and director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science, and Technology.

A verdict in Samsung's favor, especially if it prevails on its demands that Apple pay its asking price for certain transmission technology, could lead to higher-priced Apple products.

The witness lists of both sides are long on experts, engineers and designers and short on familiar names. Apple CEO Tim Cook is not scheduled to testify.

On Tuesday afternoon, Apple designer Christopher Stringer wrapped up the first day of testimony discussing his role in helping create the company's iPhone and iPod during his 17 years at the company.

Dressed in a tan suit, the bearded and long haired designer said because of Apple's desire to create original products, he and his co-workers surmounted numerous engineering problems such as working with the products' glass faces in producing both products over a number of years. Stringer said he was upset when he saw Samsung's Galaxy products enter the market.

"We've been ripped off, it's plain to see," Stringer said. "It's offensive."

Trial resumes Friday with the testimony of Apple senior vice president for marketing Philip Schiller.

Cupertino-based Apple Inc. filed its lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co. last year and is demanding $2.5 billion in damages, an award that would dwarf the largest patent-related verdict to date.

The case marks the latest skirmish between the two companies over product designs. A similar trial began last week, and the two companies have been fighting in other courts in the United Kingdom and Germany.

In the patent case, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh last month ordered Samsung to pull its Galaxy 10.1 computer tablet from the U.S. market pending the outcome of the patent trial. However, she barred Apple attorneys from telling jurors about the ban.

Apple lawyers argue there is almost no difference between Samsung products and its own, and that the South Korean company's internal documents show it copied Apple's iconic designs and its interface.

Samsung counter-claims that Apple copied its iPhone from Sony. In addition, Samsung alleges Apple is using some of Samsung's own inventions without payment, such as a computer chip at the heart of the iPhone.

Samsung lawyers also stressed the company has been developing mobile phones since 1991, long before Apple jumped into the market in 2007.

Also at issue at the trial are some of the most basic functions of today's smartphones and computer tablets, including scrolling with one finger and zooming with a finger tap.

Tuesday morning's proceedings began with a bit of drama.

First, a juror pleaded with the judge to be released from the trial, saying she suffered a panic attack and spent a sleepless night after belatedly discovering that her employer would not pay her salary while she served. A sympathetic judge granted her request and left the jury with nine members.

Then the judge rebuked John Quinn, one of Samsung's attorneys, for refusing to stop a line of legal argument the judge said she had ruled on numerous times.

"Mr. Quinn, don't make me sanction you," the judge said as the lawyer continued his argument. "Please. Please. Please, take a seat."

Quinn relented and sat down, but his tenacity underscored the high stakes of the trial that is costing both sides millions of dollars in legal fees and expenses. Battalions of lawyers from prestigious law firms are working overtime to file myriad court documents.

The most senior lawyers on each side charge upward of $500 an hour for their representation

Legal experts said that most patent disputes are resolved way before trials that can bring unpredictable and ruinous verdicts.

"A patent case of this magnitude has the possibility of impacting phone technology for years to come," said Manotti Jenkins, a patent attorney with no stake in the trial. "Given the substantial revenue that is generated by smartphone technology, companies are likely to prompt more litigation of this type and continue to use the courts as an attempt to protect and expand market share."

"; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });

Apple Designer Christopher Stringer Leads Off its Witnesses - Wall Street Journal (blog)

Apple called one of its veteran industrial designers for a walk down iPhone memory lane during the first day of its closely watched patent trial against Samsung Electronics.

Christopher Stringer, Apple’s first witness in the case, said he has worked on every hardware product the company has shipped since he joined in 1995 and is listed as an inventor on patents involved in the case. He is part of a team of around 15 designers that work in very close cooperation and report to Apple’s design guru Jonathan Ive.

There were flat iPhones, boxy iPhones and fatter iPads presented as Mr. Stringer, fashionably dressed in a white suit and sporting long hair, discussed how he and Apple’s notoriously secret squad of hardware designed arrived at their designs.

Apple lawyer Harold McElhinny, of the firm Morrison & Foerster LLP, shuffled back and forth between the witness standing handing Mr. Stringer devices as he asked him describe an array of iPhone sketches and prototypes dating back to at least 2006. One model was flatter and more brick-shaped than the current iPhone. The other resembled the iPhone, but said “iPod” on the back, which Mr. Stringer said may have been to conceal its identity or because Apple hadn’t come up with the iPhone name.

Mr. Stringer said the team wanted to build the most “beautiful” product and didn’t consider functional matters like making a phone better at making phone calls. They weren’t aiming to make a device that was cheaper or easier to build either, he said.

Apple’s lawyers are trying to prove that Apple’s iPhone and iPad innovations were unprecedented and risky as they try to prove that Samsung ripped off their designs.

Mr. Stringer detailed some of the challenges of building the iPhone, including positioning the glass cover and building the steel band around the phone without interfering with the antenna.

When asked if his team was nervous about how the iPhone would be received when it came out in 2007, he said that even Apple co-founder Steve Jobs had doubts because the product was so unprecedented.

Mr. Stringer’s testimony also provided a peak at the operations of Apple’s secretive industrial design team, which is responsible for the sleek, recognizable look of Apple devices.

He said the team often works around a table in a kitchen, translating ideas to sketches to computer designs to 3D models.

When asked to describe what industrial designers do, Mr. Stringer said they “imagine objects that don’t exist and guide the process that brings them to life.”

When asked how the design team settled on the final iPhone design, he said “It was the most beautiful of our designs… When we realized what we got, we knew.”

The day wrapped up after brief introductory testimony by Philip Schiller, an Apple senior vice president, who is expected to take the witness stand again when the trial reconvenes on Friday.

Recommended: Apple says documents prove Samsung copied iPhone - NBCNews.com (blog)

By Dan Levine and Poornima Gupta, Reuters

SAN JOSE, California -- Apple Inc told jurors on Tuesday that Samsung's internal documents show it made a decision to copy the iPhone because the South Korean company could not compete in the smartphone market on its own.

However, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd contended that Apple could not claim a "monopoly" over the rectangular design with rounded corners, as it was invented before the iPhone.

"Samsung is not some copyist, some Johnny-come-lately doing knockoffs," Samsung attorney Charles Verhoeven told the jurors.

Opening statements began on Tuesday in the high profile U.S. trial between Apple and Samsung. Both sides relied on slides featuring various phone models, internal emails and news reports to make their points.

The world's largest consumer electronics corporations have been waging legal war around the world, accusing each other of patent violations as they vie for supremacy in a fast-growing market for mobile devices.

Apple attorney Harold McElhinny started off by showing slides that featured old Samsung phones from 2006 and compared it to the Korean company's newer smartphones from 2010.

The key question, McElhinny said, would be how Samsung moved from the old phones to "these phones." And even though Apple is a successful company, he said, it must defend its rights when someone steals their property.

"Artists don't laugh that often when people steal their designs," McElhinny said.

Samsung attorney Verhoeven countered that many iPhone features, like its popular minimalist design, had already been thought up by others before its release.

"There's a distinction between commercial success and inventing something," Verhoeven said.

Samsung showed slides featuring various mobile device designs prior to the iPhone that had rectangular form factors with rounded corners.

The legal action began last year when Apple sued Samsung in a San Jose, California, federal court, accusing the South Korean company of slavishly copying the iPhone and iPad. Samsung countersued.

The Samsung products at issue run on the Android operating system, which is developed by Google Inc.

McElhinny showed jurors an internal Samsung product analysis which said the iPhone's hardware was "easy to copy." Another document prepared by a Samsung executive said the company was in a "crisis of design" due to the iPhone.

However, Verhoeven said Samsung's analyses were what all companies do in the smartphone industry, including Apple.

Before opening statements began on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh dismissed one of the jurors, a woman who works as an insurance agent. The woman said her employer would not pay her salary during jury service.

The nine member jury is now made up of seven men and two women.

The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, is Apple Inc v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al, No. 11-1846. 

More money and business news:

Follow NBCNews.com business on Twitter and Facebook

Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for restrictions.

Apple Lawyer Says Samsung Concluded 'It's Easier to Copy' - San Francisco Chronicle

(Updates with Samsung’s arguments in ninth paragraph.)

July 31 (Bloomberg) -- A lawyer for Apple Inc. told a jury that Samsung Electronics Co. decided it would rather copy the iPhone maker’s technology than “beat Apple fairly in the marketplace.”

“As we all know it’s easier to copy than to innovate,” Harold McElhinny, Apple’s lawyer, said today during his opening statement at a trial in federal court in San Jose, California.

McElhinny showed jurors a slide of Samsung’s mobile phones from 2006 with physical keyboards and squared corners, and another of its phones from 2010 with rounded edges and a glass touch-screen. Samsung arrived at the newer design only after Apple founder Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone in 2007, the lawyer said.

Jurors will decide each company’s claims that its rival infringed patents covering designs and technology for mobile devices, with potential damage awards reaching billions of dollars. The case is the first U.S. jury trial of a battle being fought on four continents for dominance of a smartphone market that Bloomberg Industries said was $219.1 billion last year.

McElhinny outlined the history and risk that Apple took in developing the iPhone, including developing a new user-interface and introducing a touch-screen glass front screen. While the device was a hit, its success wasn’t a sure thing with companies like Nokia Oyj, Motorola Inc. and Suwon, South Korea-based Samsung dominating the market, the attorney said. If the debut had been a flop, it “could have ended the company’s future,” the attorney said.

Web Page

One patent in dispute involves how a picture or web page bounces back if a user scrolls to the end of a file. Samsung adopted a similar feature for its smartphones, Apple claims. Another patent at issue covers the use of two fingers to zoom in on a picture or document, a feature that Cupertino, California- based Apple alleges Samsung copied.

McElhinny said that Samsung in June 2010 introduced the Galaxy Si9000 smartphone, the first in the Galaxy line, which he called “a complete iPhone clone.” That led to U.S. sales of 22 million mobile phones and tablet computers infringing Apple patents, which generated $2 billion in “profit that they made using our intellectual property.”

“You will hear that Apple did not sit quietly by when Samsung started infringing Apple products,” McElhinny told jurors. “Apple met with Samsung to point out that Samsung was acting illegally and demand that Samsung come up with its own designs and user interface.” That had “no positive effect,” he said.

Rectangular Shape

Samsung’s lawyer, Charles K. Verhoeven, disputed Apple’s claims that it’s copying, pointing to patents from before the iPhone’s release by companies including LG that show a rectangular shape and a glass screen.

At the outset of his opening argument, Verhoeven showed the jury a slide showing that before the iPhone was introduced, Samsung made different types of mobile phones -- including some that he said were “rectangular in shape, with rounded corners, that had touch screens on them.” The company continues to manufacture those same types of phones, he said.

“As the guts of these phones got more sophisticated, you can do more things,” Verhoeven said. “The entire industry moved this way. Is that infringement? The evidence is going to show, no, it’s competition. It’s providing the consumer what the consumer wants.”

‘Inspiring’ Product

Samsung’s lawyer said the iPhone was an “inspiring” product that created competition.

“Being inspired by a good product and seeking to make even better products is called competition,” Verhoeven said. “It’s not copying and it’s not infringing. Everybody does it in the commercial marketplace.”

He said Apple was, in fact, inspired by Sony Corp., pointing to e-mails among members of Apple’s design team discussing how the iPhone’s original design compared to a Sony design.

Apple’s demand for $2.5 billion in damages is based on claims Samsung copied the iPhone and iPad. Apple also wants to make permanent a preliminary ban it won on U.S. sales of a Samsung tablet computer, and extend the ban to Samsung smartphones.

Samsung countersued and will present claims that Apple is infringing two patents covering mobile-technology standards and three utility patents. Samsung is demanding royalties of as much as 2.4 percent for each device sold, according to a court filing.

The case is Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 11- cv-01846, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).

--With assistance from Susan Decker in Washington. Editors: Peter Blumberg, Stephen Farr

To contact the reporters on this story: Joel Rosenblatt in San Francisco at jrosenblatt@bloomberg.net; Adam Satariano in San Francisco at asatariano1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net


Leveling the Playing Field: the Rural iPhone - Wireless Week

Loading...

It took more than four years for the iPhone to land at a regional provider. 

Between 2007 and 2011, when Mississippi-based C Spire Wireless began selling the iPhone, the popular smartphone was the purview of top-tier providers. 

Even after C Spire became the first regional provider to sell the iPhone last November, the device seemed to be out of reach for smaller operators, and its absence had a noticeable impact on regional providers. 

Alaska’s General Communications, Inc. (GCI) saw a slowdown in its subscriber growth when AT&T, its only current national competitor in the state, got the iPhone.

"We continued to see subscriber growth, but it was not nearly at the same rate we estimated AT&T's to be," says Maureen Moore, vice president of consumer services at GCI. "Had AT&T not had an exclusive on the iPhone, we would have tried to get it as soon as possible...if you didn't have the iPhone, you had to be looking at other ways to grow subscribers."

The issue prompted GCI to change course, focusing on niche rural markets where AT&T didn't offer service. But the strategy wasn't ideal.

"We knew that we needed the iPhone to effectively compete," Moore said. 

In April, that happened.

GCI, MTA Solutions, Appalachian Wireless, Alaska Communication Systems, Cellcom and nTelosâ€"none of which have more than a million subscribersâ€"each announced that they would offer the iPhone, and sell it at a cheaper rate than their larger competitors.  Even though they had to wait longer than Verizon Wireless and Sprint, they still got the iPhone before T-Mobile USA and U.S. Cellular.

GCI began selling the iPhone several years after AT&T, its main competitor, but customers still lined up outside stores for the iPhone's midnight release. 

"We had hundreds of people - they were really lined up at the door," Moore says.

The iPhone launch was the first time GCI had opened stores at midnight for a device launch and it wasn't clear how much demand there would be for a device that had been offered by a competitor for years. 

“I actually was a little bit skeptical,” Moore admits. Eight of its 42 locations opened early for the iPhone.

GCI had a couple of advantages. It was selling the iPhone 4S for $50 less than AT&T, and was offering it with slightly cheaper data plans. It also encouraged customers to pick its iPhone over AT&T’s by bundling the device with its cable Internet service, so customers who bought the iPhone with GCI would get more usage on their home Internet service. 

As with other regional providers to land the iPhone, it’s more than just a gadget to GCI. The iPhone is a tool that has reinvigorated its ability to compete with larger operators with bigger networks and a wider variety of devices.

Wisconsin-based wireless provider Cellcom reports that sales have been "huge" and churn is showing signs of improvement since the iPhone came on board last spring.

"Our customers really wanted it, that's really the bottom line," CEO Pat Riordan says. 

Without the iPhone, Riordan says Cellcom's historically rock-bottom churn rate began to hover around the 1 percent markâ€"an ominous sign for a company whose churn numbers typically stayed under a single percentage point. 

"You can only get so far behind before it becomes critical mass," Riordan says. "We really needed the iPhone for our customers." 

Cellcom has about 285,000 customers in Wisconsin and portions of Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Competitors include AT&T, Verizon Wireless and Sprint, all of whom offer the iPhone.

"Once we had the iPhone, customers have come back to use because that's the only reason they ever left," Riordan says. He declined to give Cellcom’s exact sales numbers for the iPhone.

Conrad Hunter, COO of nTelos, says adding the iPhone allowed the Virginia-based provider to “close the gap” with its competition. 

"The bottom line is it's an iconic device,” he says. “For customers that are really Apple centric, even though we had great Android devices, it left us with very little choices for those customers. It forced a lot more churn."

Meeting Apple’s Demands

Working with Apple is not like working with other cell phone manufacturers. 

“I think all OEMs can be somewhat demanding, but Apple has a unique capability to be extremely demanding,” says Ken Simpson, co-founder and co-CEO of management consulting firm Strong-Bridge, which helped support GCI's iPhone launch. “They can say not only to a company like GCI but to the national operators, ‘You will do the following.’”

Even so, when GCI found out last year that Apple was going to be taking applications from regional carriers who wanted the iPhone, "we decided to go for it,” Moore says.

And that's when the heavy lifting got underway. 

GCI worked with billing company Cycle 30 to fulfill Apple's requirements for the iPhone launch. The company needed to change both its point-of-sale operations and its back-end systems.

The upgrades were "more an overhaul than a slight remodeling," says Wendy Gonzalez, vice president of products and services at Cycle 30. The changes included tying together GCI's point-of-sale system with its billing system to make sure customers had a "seamless, positive" experience, and taking steps to ensure that its new iPhone subscribers paid the rate specified in their contracts. 

"The iPhone, like many smartphones, has a pretty big cost associated with it, so we have to ensure we get the associated revenue by having effective contract enforcement," Gonzalez says. 

GCI's old process required employees to make decisions about which rate plans were associated with a particular device, making the system prone to human error. The new system Cycle 30 put in place only allowed the appropriate plans to appear.

For instance, store employees might inadvertently give customers an unlimited data plan for the iPhone if the point of sale system can’t enforce the correct rate because it isn’t integrated with the billing system. Combing the two systems also allows operators to ensure that customers are charged the appropriate fees for upgrading to a new phone or cancelling their contracts.

"It was critical we be able to enforce that process," Gonzalez says.

GCI also had to meet requirements for the reporting, ordering, selling and receipt of the iPhone, some of "biggest IT requirements" of the project.

"Apple is world-class in supply chain management," Gonzalez says. GCI also wanted to offer Apple Care at the same time it began selling the iPhone, a goal requiring real-time integration between its systems and Apple's.

Some of Apple's requirements were already on GCI's roadmap, Moore says.

"At the end of the day, we're a better carrier as a result," Moore says. 

Like GCI, nTelos had to make a number of upgrades to meet Apple's requirements. In preparation for the iPhone launch, nTelos added additional data capacity to its network, made improvements to its retail stores and upgraded its point of sale systems, logistics and inventory control. 

"Apple is much more hands-on than our other OEMs," Hunter says. "They know what they're doing, and they know the way they want to do it." 

Even with the considerable investment required by Apple, Hunter expects the iPhone to be a net benefit for nTelos.

“We see it as very positive for our business this year and well into next year,” he says.

The iPhone is a long-term investment, since the upfront costs are too high for it to be immediately profitable. 

It’s been just nine weeks since Cellcom launched the iPhone, so the device’s expenses still remain higher than the financial benefits. When asked when he expects the device to become profitable, Riordan quips, "That's a question I get asked by my board." But he maintains that the iPhone will pay off in the long run. 

"It's already clear to me that it's a good deal," Riordan says. "We're not taking such a big hit that it's causing us to scream and holler... we've been profitable and we will be profitable this year as well."

Regional providers’ existing relationship with Apple carries another key benefit: when Apple launches the next version of the iPhone, it shouldn’t take years for companies like Cellcom to get it. GCI, nTelos and Cellcom all say they expect to get the upcoming generation of iPhones at about the same time as AT&T, Verizon Wireless and Sprint, helping their smartphone lineup stay competitive.

It’s still a mystery why Apple decided to work with regional operators in the first place. Simpson speculates that it may have been as simple as a strategic decision to push its products into the marketplace, but says that no one really knows for sure. For its part, Apple has not made any public comments on the issue and did not respond to requests for comment.

More Expensive? Not So Much.

The iPhone is widely believed to be more expensive to offer than other smartphones, a reputation reinforced by margin-crushing subsidies and numbers like Sprint's $15.5 billion four-year contract with Apple.

But Moore says that hasn't really been the case at GCI. "If you compare handset to handset, our costs are pretty close for the iPhone compared to newer Android devices," she says. GCI has not disclosed financial details of its arrangement with Apple. 

Sales of the iPhone at GCI are “on track with expectations,” though Moore declined to provide exact sales numbers. 

Riordan suspects that Cellcom is getting a fairer deal on the iPhone than on Android devices.   “We think we’re paying closer to the price the bigger carriers are getting…with Android there’s more discount being provided to other carriers,” he says. With Apple, “we feel there’s less of an unequal subsidy.” 

Riordan concedes that he doesn’t have any hard numbers to back up his suspicions, but his assertion seems plausible to Simpson. Because regional providers place smaller orders than top-tier operators, they have less power to bargain volume discounts with manufacturers, Simpson says.

The iPhone long served as a symbol of the vagaries of handset exclusivity deals. One month after the device popped up at GCI, nTelos and Cellcom, the Rural Cellular Association (RCA) withdrew its FCC petition on the issue. 

However, it would be a mistake to assume handset exclusivity deals don’t remain problematic for smaller providers, says Steve Berry, head of the RCA. 

"It's been a real tough road for the smaller carriers," he says.

Top-tier providers continue to dominate production capacity, leaving smaller operators to pick up the leftovers. And once they do get their hands on a device, sometimes a year after it first hits the market, they still have to prepare their network, a process that can take as long as nine months, Berry says.

According to Berry, the decision to shift the RCA’s focus away from device exclusivity stemmed from the challenge the lack of interoperability in the 700 MHz band poses to regional operators. 

"If you can't get interoperability, you can't get devices that work on your network in the first place," he says. "Unless you have interoperability, you still don't have handsets." 

Verizon's LTE network runs on band 13 and AT&T's LTE service operators on band 17. Most regional providers planned on using band 12 spectrum for LTE, but are now finding it difficult to procure equipment and phones compatible with their niche band class. The issue has even forced C Spire Wireless to set aside plans to use its 700 MHz spectrum for an LTE network set to launch in September.

So for now, the RCA is focusing its energy on collapsing band 17 and band 12 into a single class, with interoperability across the entire band the ultimate goal. Handset exclusivity remains an issue, just not the most important one.

The arrival of the iPhone at a greater variety of providers seemed to signal that Apple was open to working with the small guys, but the smartphone still remains out of reach for many, Berry says.

"We do have some members that chose not to get the product because of the enormous up-front costs," Berry says. "Many decided they cannot afford the iPhone."  

One of those operators was U.S. Cellular, whose CEO told investors last year that the iPhone "didn't make sense for our business economically” and the risks of carrying it were “unacceptable.” 

Operators take a big risk when they pursue the iPhone’s halo effect. But for some smaller operators, it appears to be serving as a guardian angel.

Three months after they began selling the iPhone, GCI, nTelos and Cellcomâ€"each of whom had been losing subscribers to larger competitors carrying the deviceâ€"report they’ve seen a rise in new customers. 

"The iPhone represents the first time people pursued the device first...and the carrier and the carrier relationship second. That's pretty significant," Simpson says. 

For regional operators, having the iPhone has helped level the playing field.

Apple: Street Ponders iPhone, iPad Clues - Barron's (blog)

Shares of Apple (AAPL) are up $15.54, or 2.6%, at $610.57 today, perhaps lifted in part by talk of the shares being included at some point in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA), and speculation about a stock split that might be implied by such a possibility.

But a greater focus at the moment is what will happen in the next several months, as analysts try to handicap potential introductions of new iPhone, iPad and other product introductions in the fall.

Yesterday, you’ll recall, the Web site iMore predicted that the company will host a special event on September 12th to unveil the next iPhone model, and, possibly, a smaller, cheaper version of the iPad, the so-called iPad Mini.

Speculation intensifies today following the fiscal Q1 report last night from chip maker Cirrus Logic (CRUS), which gets the vast majority of its revenue selling audio encoders and decodes for Apple’s products.

Cirrus forecast that revenue will rise about 70% this quarter from last quarter’s level, well above what the Street has been modeling to date. Some analysts are taking that as a sign the company expects a bigger-than-usual order for parts from Apple.

Cirrus shares are up $6.97, or over 23%, at $36.81 on that forecast.

Today, Jefferies & Co.’s Peter Misek, who has a Buy recommendation on the shares and a $750 price target, writes that several sources have confirmed to him the iMore date, though he thinks it will be just the iPhone that is unveiled on the 12th, with Apple possibly hosting a separate event for an iPad Mini, and a separate event for the much-rumored Apple-branded television set.

Raymond James’s Tavis McCourt, who has a Buy rating on Apple shares and a $730 price target, writes today that the Cirrus results are in contrast to more modest forecasts in recent weeks from other Apple suppliers such as TriQuint Semiconductor (TQNT), Skyworks Solutions (SWKS), and Qualcomm (QCOM).

As McCourt sees it, the disparity can be explained as a disparity between the different companies’ reporting schedule, and by differences in how they make revenue off Apple preducts:

First, Cirrus’ CEO mentioned that it is not atypical for the company to start shipping product one-half quarter to one full quarter before launch of a consumer product. As it relates to Qualcomm, we believe Qualcomm booked no material revenue from Apple in last year’s September quarter even though the iPhone 4S shipped within a couple weeks of quarter close. Therefore, we suspect Qualcomm has a revenue recognition policy that may be quite different than Cirrus’ policy. Secondly, Cirrus also ships into iPads (including Wi-Fi-only), whereas Qualcomm, TriQuint, and Skyworks largely do not for their big ASP components. Cirrus’ guidance may be explained by a 7-inch iPad/iPod launch this quarter, as this device would likely have meaningful Cirrus content in it, but not necessarily the other three mentioned.

McCourt concludes that the “drumbeats of the Apple supply chain have started” and he thinks the Cirrus results point to a”large build” for the next iPhone, whether in September or later, and “likely guarantees a meaningful 7-inch iPad/iPod launch as well,” though he doesn’t speculate as to what the time frame may be.

On a related note, Morgan Stanley‘s Katy Huberty, picking through the details of the 10-Q filing from Apple, notes that Apple’s “off-balance sheet commitments” grew 44%, year over year,” in fiscal Q3, “an acceleration from the March quarter and above the 23% revenue growth in June.”

Huberty, who has an Overweight rating on Apple stock and a $720 price target, writes that based on historical patterns of correlation between Apple’s, Huberty thinks the build-up in component and other expenses presages a surge in revenue in the calendar Q4, Apple’s fiscal Q1:

if revenue to off-balance sheet commitments were consistent with historical trends since the first iPhone launched, it suggests $45.2B of revenue. Given we expect some of the commitments are for the unannounced iPhone 5 and potentially iPad Mini which could come as late as October, some of the revenue strength could be pushed into the December quarter as we saw in 2011.

MorganStanleyAppleOffBalanceSheetInvestmentsJuly312012

Apple claims Samsung copied iPhone tech - USA TODAY

SAN FRANCISCO â€" Opening statements are expected to begin today to decide the merits of Apple's claims that Samsung's smartphones and computer tablets are illegal knockoffs of the iPhone and iPad.

  • Apple general counsel Bruce Sewell in court on Monday in San Jose, Calif.

    Justin Sullivan, Getty Images

    Apple general counsel Bruce Sewell in court on Monday in San Jose, Calif.

Justin Sullivan, Getty Images

Apple general counsel Bruce Sewell in court on Monday in San Jose, Calif.

After a jury was selected Monday, lawyers for both sides were set to deliver their opening statements Tuesday morning in a San Jose federal courtroom, followed by Apple calling its first witness, a company designer. The witness lists of both sides are long on experts, engineers and designers and short on familiar names. Apple CEO Tim Cook, for example, is not scheduled to testify.

In court documents, Apple alleges that its iPad and iPhone are being copied by Samsung and wants the products pulled from stores and the South Korean company to pay $2.5 billion in damages. Samsung, in its filings, calls Apple's request for damages an "absurd windfall" at the expense of consumers, saying that iPhones run on its wireless technologies and, therefore, Apple should pay it royalties.

Samsung and other mobile-device makers, in part, serve as proxies for Google because they run on its Android mobile operating system software. Apple's relationship with Google turned bitter when the late Steve Jobs learned that the search giant was coming out with its HTC Nexus smartphone. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt had been serving on Apple's board but resigned.

"I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product," Apple co-founder Jobs told biographer Walter Isaacson. "I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this." Apple sued over the likeness of the HTC Nexus to its iPhone.

The trial comes as Apple has scored five preliminary injunctions against Samsung, two against Motorola and two against HTC, he says.

Google is expected to be closely watching the case with lawyers all around the trial.

Apple is waging war about similarities in hardware design, software functions and packaging, according to court documents.

Apple's key allegation against Samsung relates to an Apple patent that covers touch-based dragging of documents, as well as pinch-to-zoom and twist-to-rotate capabilities. Apple is also staking a claim on the tap-to-zoom function that makes text or images pop up larger. The company says Samsung infringes on its scrolling patent as well.

Consumers could notice some differences if mobile-device makers are forced to alter their products. Still, if Apple prevails, it wouldn't be long before these companies would create technology workarounds, legal experts say. Samsung has already devised technology workarounds to keep some of its devices in the market.

"Apple has had some wins in court," Mueller says. "But what may be even more important: Its intellectual property enforcement has discouraged many companies in the industry from building products that bear too much of a resemblance to Apple's gadgets."

Samsung may have an issue of trust with the jury. "Samsung set their e-mail system to automatically delete e-mails," says Michael Barclay, a fellow at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "This is just terrible."

U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal ruled last week that Samsung allowed e-mails to be deleted that were relevant to Apple's infringement claims and said that Apple had the right to inform the jury.

"In effect, Samsung kept the shredder on long after it should have known about this litigation and simply trusted its custodial employees to save relevant to Apple's infringement claims and said that Apple had the right to inform the jury.

"In effect, Samsung kept the shredder on long after it should have known about this litigation and simply trusted its custodial employees to save relevant evidence from it," Grewal wrote.

â€"

Contributing: Scott Martin in San Francisco, and The Associated Press.

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.
USA TODAY is now using Facebook Comments on our stories and blog posts to provide an enhanced user experience. To post a comment, log into Facebook and then "Add" your comment. To report spam or abuse, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box. To find out more, read the FAQ and Conversation Guidelines. 

MAKE NO MISTAKE: The Future Of Apple Depends On The iPhone 5 - Business Insider

Siri ad

So, Siri, will the iPhone be a hit or a dud?

Apple's next version of the iPhone, the iPhone 5, is already one of the most eagerly anticipated products in history.

And with good reason.

Most Apple observers expected the iPhone 5 to be released a year ago, when Apple instead underwhelmed with an iPhone 4S "refresh." So the world has been waiting for this product for almost two years.

And make no mistake:

The iPhone 5 also has more riding on it than pretty much any product in history.

Good or bad, the iPhone will define Apple's financial performance and reputation for at least the next couple of years.

If the iPhone 5 blows people away, Apple will be set up to clock another year of astounding revenue and earnings growth, at rates of growth never before seen for a company of this size. And the halo of magic and genius that still surrounds Apple and Apple products will allow the company to continue to command premium prices from consumers and a premium stock multiple.

If the iPhone 5 disappoints, meanwhile, analysts may have to cut their earnings projections for Apple. Worse, Apple will clearly have lost the lead in a market it created, one in which it used to be a full year ahead of any competition. If that happens, the magic halo will go "poof," and Apple will be perceived as just another company, rendered mortal and ordinary by the death of Steve Jobs.

Why is the iPhone 5 so important financially?

Because new information suggest that the iPhone is responsible for the vast majority of Apple's profits.

Last week, in a lawsuit with Samsung, Apple was forced to release documents that showed the relative gross profit margin for its iPhones and iPads.

This information allows us to estimate, to an extent never before possible, just how much profit Apple derives from the iPhone.

The bottom line?

The iPhone likely accounts for almost two-thirds of Apple's profits.

This means that the company is even more highly dependent on the iPhone than most Apple observers realize.

(The iPad, meanwhile, likely accounts for almost a third of the company's total profit. The Mac, iPods, Apple TVs, and other Apple products, meanwhile, likely account for about 10% or less of Apple's profits. I'll walk through these calculations below).

Because of this extraordinary dependency on the iPhone, Apple's ability to continue to grow its profit faster than Wall Street expects depends on two things:

  • Continuing to rapidly grow the number of iPhones sold. This will depend in large part on the iPhone's attractiveness relative to other smartphones.
  • Maintaining the high gross profit (more than 50%) on each unit. This will depend on Apple's ability to maintain its high average selling prices, even as the smartphone market expands into lower-income demographics and the products become increasingly commoditized. This will likely be difficult.

Let's Go To The Numbers...

Working with Apple's financials can be confusing, because the company's fiscal year ends in September, while most people focus on calendar years. All of the numbers below are for calendar years.

The source of all these numbers is a recent report by analyst Gene Munster of Piper Jaffray, the most influential Apple analyst on Wall Street.

The goal of this exercise, meanwhile, is to determine how dependent Wall Street's financial expectations for Apple are on the continued success of the iPhone, as well as whether those expectations are aggressive or conservative.

First, here are Gene Munster's projections for Apple's overall revenue for the next few years:

APPLE REVENUE

CY 2011 (Actual):          $129 billion, +71% year over year
CY 2012 (Estimate):     $164 billion, +28%
CY 2013 (Estimate):     $196 billion, +20%
CY 2014 (Estimate):     $251 billion, +28%

Note that Munster's 2013 estimate calls for a sharp deceleration in Apple's revenue growth. Ironically, this is actually good news, because it means that there is upside to the estimate. If Apple delivers a strong growth rate next year, the 2013 estimate will go up.

Also note, though, that Munster's 2014 estimate calls for Apple's revenue to reaccelerate.  This estimate is more aggressive.

It's also worth noting that growth rates like these for a company this size are unheard-of.  The expectations for Apple are already high. 

Next, let's look at the share of that projected revenue that is expected to come from the iPhone:

iPHONE REVENUE

CY 2011 (Actual):          $61 billion, +103% year over year, 48% of total revenue
CY 2012 (Estimate):     $83 billion, +35% y/y, 51% of total
CY 2013 (Estimate):     $103 billion, +25% y/y, 53% of total
CY 2014 (Estimate):     $138 billion, +34% y/y, 55% of total

So Munster projects the same sharp slowdown in iPhone revenue next year as he does for overall revenue. Again, ironically, this is good news. The estimate seems conservative. If the iPhone 5 is a big hit, the estimate is likely to go up. Also again, however, Munster projects a reacceleration of iPhone sales in 2014. This projection is more aggressive.

Note that, this year, the iPhone will account for more than half of Apple's total revenue.  This dependency is expected to increase each year.

Profits

So that's revenue. Now let's look at the likely profit contribution for Apple's 3 main product lines:

  • iPhones
  • iPads
  • Macs and Other

The information produced in the Samsung lawsuit reveals something startling:

  • iPhones likely account for more than 60% of Apple's profits
  • iPads likely contribute about a third of Apple's profits (~33%)
  • Macs and Other likely contribute only 5%-10% of Apple's profits

Importantly, these are my estimates, not Gene Munster's. I am basing them on the "gross profit" percentages for iPhones and iPads revealed in the lawsuit documents.

One assumption I am making that some analysts might quibble with is that the relative contribution percentages of gross profit for each product (profit after direct product costs) are the same as the relative contribution percentages for net profit (profit after all costs). I think this is a reasonable assumption, but some analysts might disagree.

Specifically, the lawsuit documents reveal that the iPhone had gross margins of 49%-58% from 2010-2012 (I've used 53%).

Meanwhile, the iPad had gross margins of 23%-32% (I've used 28%).

When you apply these numbers to the revenue for each product, you get the gross-profit shares I described above.

So, what about the future?

Let's look at Gene Munster's projections for Apple's gross profit margin for the next few years. The message here is that Munster (and Wall Street) expect Apple's profit margin to stay basically the same.

APPLE GROSS PROFIT MARGIN

CY 2011 (Actual):          42%
CY 2012 (Estimate):     43%
CY 2013 (Estimate):     42%
CY 2014 (Estimate):     41%

Given the different profit margins for Apple's three product lines, the critical assumption here is that the iPhone will continue to grow rapidly and maintain its extremely high gross margin. The estimates allow for some drop in this margin, but not for a sharp slowdown in sales or a sharp drop in the iPhone's profit margin. 

Importantly, the estimates do not allow Apple to gradually "become an iPad company." Thanks to the difference between the iPad and iPhone margin, if the iPad quickly became Apple's dominant product, it's profit margin would get crushed.  This is likely especially true if the company releases the widely expected "iPad Mini," and it has a lower gross margin than the current iPad.

The Bottom Line

The bottom line is that Apple's profits are much more dependent on the iPhone than a glance at revenue would suggest.

Although Wall Street's expectations for Apple's revenue and profit growth in 2013 seem reasonably conservative (and, therefore, have room to rise), the expectations for 2014 are more aggressive.

If Apple's iPhone 5 is a monster hit, Apple has room to blow away Wall Street's current forecasts, especially in 2013.

If Apple's iPhone 5 is a dud, meanwhile, Wall Street may have to cut its Apple estimates.

The difference between these two scenarios would likely affect not only Apple's earnings, but the price investors will be willing to pay for those earnings. So the difference between a "hit" and a "dud" iPhone 5 would likely be hundreds of dollars per share.

If the iPhone 5 is a dud, moreover, Apple will likely have a hard time regaining its market lead (and aura) with future generations of the product. Rather, unless its competitors stumble, Apple will be forced to play catch-up.

If that happens, consumers and investors will likely conclude that Apple's magical run is over and that the company is no longer the company it was before Steve Jobs died. In short, Apple will, once again, become ordinary.

So all eyes are (and should be) on the iPhone 5...

SEE ALSO: If The iPhone 5 Really Looks Like This, Apple May Be Screwed

iPhone Appeal Dims As Samsung Shines - WLTX.com

New York (AP via USA Today) -- The latest iPhone looks much the same as the first iPhone, which came out more than five years ago. That hasn't been a problem for Apple - until, now.

The pace of iPhone sales has slowed, Apple revealed last week. Part of the problem is that the competition has found a formula that works: thinner phones with big screens that make the iPhone look small and chubby.

For a dose of smartphone envy, iPhone owners need to look no further than Samsung Electronics, the number-one maker of smartphones in the world. Its newest flagship phone, the Galaxy S III, is sleek and wafer-thin.

By comparison, the iPhone "is getting a bit long in the tooth," says Ramon Llamas, an analyst with research firm IDC.

Apple has become the world's most valuable company on the back of the iPhone, which makes up nearly half of its revenue. IPhone sales are still growing, but the question of how fast they're growing is of keen interest to investors. The iPhone certainly has room to grow: only one in six smartphones sold globally in the second quarter had an Apple logo on its back.

When Apple reported financial results for its latest quarter last week, a new phenomenon was revealed: Buyers started pulling back on iPhone purchases just six months after the launch of the latest iPhone model.

Apple executives blamed the tepid sales on "rumors and speculation" that may have caused some consumers to wait for the next iPhone, which is due in the fall. But in the past, iPhone sales have stayed strong nine months after the new model is launched, then dipped as people began holding off, waiting for the new model.

In the April to June period, Apple sold 26 million phones, 28 percent more than it did in the same quarter last year.

Most other phone makers "would kill" for those numbers, says Stephen Baker, an analyst with research firm NPD Group.

The exception is Samsung, which has solidified its position at the world's largest maker of smartphones. Analysts believe it made just over 50 million smartphones in the second quarter, or nearly twice as many as Apple. (The company doesn't release specific figures.) Its smartphone sales have nearly tripled in a year.

Most of Samsung's sales comprise cheaper smartphones that don't compete directly with the iPhone. Its flagship phones, though, have emerged as the iPhone's chief rivals.

Samsung and Apple have a complicated relationship. They're rivals in the smartphone and tablet-computer markets, and are set to square off in a high-profile trial over mobile patents in San Francisco this week. Samsung is one of Apple's largest suppliers of chips and displays, and Apple is one of Samsung's largest clients.

Though Apple is known as a relentless innovator, the iPhone's screen has been the same size - 3.5 inches on the diagonal - since the first iPhone came out. It was a big screen for the time, but among the competition, screen sizes have crept up.

Samsung has increased the screen size of its Galaxy series with every model since it debuted in 2010. The Galaxy S had a screen that measured 4 inches diagonally, and was followed by the S II, at 4.3 inches. The S III, the latest model, measures 4.8 inches. The screen is nearly twice as large as the iPhone's. Yet the Galaxy is thinner and lighter than an iPhone.

Samsung has also achieved surprising success with an even bigger phone, the Samsung Galaxy Note. Its 5.3-inch screen makes it somewhat awkward to hold to the ear, but customers don't seem to mind, or perhaps they value the large screen and included stylus more.

Aside from design, Apple is inflexible in another way: by releasing a new phone only one per year, it lets the competition create new phones with features the iPhone doesn't have and lets them go unchallenged, at least until the new iPhone comes out.

"Apple's schedule leaves the other ten or nine months of the year wide open for everybody else," says Llamas.

For instance, the newest Samsung phones can use the latest high-speed data networks in the U.S., and talk to payment terminals in stores, so they can act as smart "credit cards."

Samsung times its product launches to take maximum advantage of the lull in iPhone sales that usually precedes the launch of a new model. The S III went on sale in Europe in May and in the U.S. in June.

The rest of the competition is in disarray, and hasn't been able to capitalize in the same way on Apple's rigid release schedule and conservative design. Nokia, until recently the world's largest phone maker, is in sharp retreat and is conducting a complete revamp of its smartphones. Research In Motion is stuck with outdated software for its BlackBerrys at least until it launches a new operating system next year. HTC Corp. of Taiwan is suffering from marketing missteps in the last few years. LG Electronics, another Korean company, hasn't been able to keep up with Samsung when it comes to high-end phones, or with cheaper manufacturers on the low end.

Together, Samsung and Apple make half of the world's smartphones, and since competitors are losing money or breaking even, account for nearly all of the profits in the industry.

"Samsung is the only company that didn't really buckle under the weight of the iPhone 4S. Good, solid devices and good, solid marketing behind them," Llamas says.

Analysts now expect the new iPhone to arrive in September or October, probably with a slightly bigger screen. Sticking to one screen size has served Apple well, Baker says, but he sees the company moving with the times, as it's done many times before.

"When they have the reputation and the brand loyalty that they have, you don't have to be the first to market" with new features, Baker says. "You don't have to take that risk."

Why I might switch from an iPhone to an Android smartphone - Houston Chronicle (blog)

Samsung Galaxy S IIIBased on the current rumors du jour, Apple is expected to announce the next iPhone, along with a smaller version of the iPad, on Sept. 12. This same rumor has the devices going on sale nine days later, on Sept. 21. Whenever the new iPhone materializes, you can expect millions to buy them, some even lining up overnight for the privilege.

This time, though, I may not be among the multitudes.

Although I’ve been an iPhone user since the 3G, and I’m now carrying a two-year-old iPhone 4, I’m not sure I’m going to make the leap to the next model. I’m seriously considering a platform switch to Android.

This isn’t set in stone. I want to see what Apple has to offer this time around, and I could end up packing what’s presumptively called the iPhone 5. But after looking at the current crop of Android-based devices â€" particularly the HTC One series and the Samsung Galaxy S III â€" Apple’s got a lot of work to do to win me over.

To be clear, my issue is not with Apple itself, or with the controlled iOS ecosystem. I actually like the curated nature of the App Store and Apple’s fanatical attention to detail. However, at this point I’m also looking at trajectory â€" where Apple’s hardware and design trends are headed compared to those of Google’s Android and its hardware partners.

The Galaxy S III and the HTC One are remarkable smartphones. Both have big, gorgeous screens that rival the iPhone’s current retina displays. Both are remarkably fast. They feature technology that isn’t in the current crop of iPhones, such as 4G LTE connectivity and Near Field Communications capabilities â€" though both are expected in the iPhone 5.

Apple’s design trajectory has it taking incremental steps. The original iPhone was a dramatic leap for smartphones, and the iPhone 4 was another big step. But while Apple tweaks its smartphones between two-year design-change cycles, Android devices advance in big ways each year. While few people buy a smartphone every year, this pace ultimately leads to more innovation.

iphone4sAs a result, Apple’s going to be playing serious catch-up with the hardware of the iPhone 5. It’s possible the next device will leapfrog Android devices, but in six months, a new Android phone will likely eclipse it. Apple’s annual refresh cycle is starting to put it at a disadvantage, at least for those users who want state-of-the-art hardware.

At the moment, I think Apple still has an edge in terms of software. iOS remains a more intuitive and consistent operating system, and the design quality of its apps are generally superior. But  the latest version of Android is much improved, as are the shells companies like HTC and Samsung lay on top of the interface. As I’ve written before, I’ve come to really appreciate HTC’s Sense and, to a lesser extent, Samsung’s TouchWiz (please, Samsung, come up with less embarrassing name, OK?). For the average user, they do indeed make Android better.

And Apple’s primary innovation in its current software â€" Siri, its voice-based personal assistant â€" increasingly strikes me as a gimmick. It simply doesn’t work that well. That said, the equivalent on Samsung’s Galaxy S III is worse, and Android’s built-in voice actions are marginally better. Siri is going to have be a markedly better feature in the iPhone 5 to win me over.

What I really like about Android, though, is that it generally is more convenient to use. Prime evidence: The ability to install home screen widgets that allow you to turn features like Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and GPS on and off quickly. Every time I have to dive three menus deep to turn off Bluetooth on my iPhone, I get more annoyed.

What could keep me from defecting? Aside from Apple producing an incredibly kick-butt iPhone 5, there are several issues.

The first is that I’m heavily invested in the Apple ecosystem. Everyone in my family has an iPhone, and almost all of us use Macs. The latest update to OS X has ties into iOS, most notably in its Notification Center and Messages. I like that type of integration and I’m hesitant to give it up.

I like the fact that I don’t have to worry about malware on iPhones, thanks to Apple’s heavy-handed curation of the iTunes App Store. Malware on Android is a growing problem, and that’s a serious concern for me.

Finally, I’ve got a lot invested in iPhone apps. I haven’t totaled up how much I’ve spent, but I suspect over time it’s been well over $150 for the apps I use regularly â€" maybe more. While many apps can be matched between iOS and Android, developers generally don’t give you credit on one platform when you’ve paid for apps on another.

When the next iPhone is announced, I’ll weigh all these factors and come to a decision. Meanwhile, I’d love to hear from iPhone users who made the leap to Android, as well as Android users who’ve switched to iOS. What’s your experience been like? And how have you dealt with the issues that make me hesitate to switch?

IPhone appeal dims as Samsung shines - Businessweek

NEW YORK (AP) â€" The latest iPhone looks much the same as the first iPhone, which came out more than five years ago. That hasn't been a problem for Apple â€" until, now.

The pace of iPhone sales has slowed, Apple revealed last week. Part of the problem is that the competition has found a formula that works: thinner phones with big screens that make the iPhone look small and chubby.

For a dose of smartphone envy, iPhone owners need to look no further than Samsung Electronics Co., the number-one maker of smartphones in the world. Its newest flagship phone, the Galaxy S III, is sleek and wafer-thin.

By comparison, the iPhone "is getting a bit long in the tooth," says Ramon Llamas, an analyst with research firm IDC.

Apple has become the world's most valuable company on the back of the iPhone, which makes up nearly half of its revenue. IPhone sales are still growing, but the question of how fast they're growing is of keen interest to investors. The iPhone certainly has room to grow: only one in six smartphones sold globally in the second quarter had an Apple logo on its back.

When Apple reported financial results for its latest quarter last week, a new phenomenon was revealed: Buyers started pulling back on iPhone purchases just six months after the launch of the latest iPhone model.

Apple executives blamed the tepid sales on "rumors and speculation" that may have caused some consumers to wait for the next iPhone, which is due in the fall. But in the past, iPhone sales have stayed strong nine months after the new model is launched, then dipped as people began holding off, waiting for the new model.

In the April to June period, Apple sold 26 million phones, 28 percent more than it did in the same quarter last year.

Most other phone makers "would kill" for those numbers, says Stephen Baker, an analyst with research firm NPD Group.

The exception is Samsung, which has solidified its position at the world's largest maker of smartphones. Analysts believe it made just over 50 million smartphones in the second quarter, or nearly twice as many as Apple. (The company doesn't release specific figures.) Its smartphone sales have nearly tripled in a year.

Most of Samsung's sales comprise cheaper smartphones that don't compete directly with the iPhone. Its flagship phones, though, have emerged as the iPhone's chief rivals.

Samsung and Apple have a complicated relationship. They're rivals in the smartphone and tablet-computer markets, and are set to square off in a high-profile trial over mobile patents in San Francisco this week. Samsung is one of Apple's largest suppliers of chips and displays, and Apple is one of Samsung's largest clients.

Though Apple is known as a relentless innovator, the iPhone's screen has been the same size â€" 3.5 inches on the diagonal â€" since the first iPhone came out. It was a big screen for the time, but among the competition, screen sizes have crept up.

Samsung has increased the screen size of its Galaxy series with every model since it debuted in 2010. The Galaxy S had a screen that measured 4 inches diagonally, and was followed by the S II, at 4.3 inches. The S III, the latest model, measures 4.8 inches. The screen is nearly twice as large as the iPhone's. Yet the Galaxy is thinner and lighter than an iPhone.

Samsung has also achieved surprising success with an even bigger phone, the Samsung Galaxy Note. Its 5.3-inch screen makes it somewhat awkward to hold to the ear, but customers don't seem to mind, or perhaps they value the large screen and included stylus more.

Aside from design, Apple is inflexible in another way: by releasing a new phone only one per year, it lets the competition create new phones with features the iPhone doesn't have and lets them go unchallenged, at least until the new iPhone comes out.

"Apple's schedule leaves the other ten or nine months of the year wide open for everybody else," says Llamas.

For instance, the newest Samsung phones can use the latest high-speed data networks in the U.S., and talk to payment terminals in stores, so they can act as smart "credit cards."

Samsung times its product launches to take maximum advantage of the lull in iPhone sales that usually precedes the launch of a new model. The S III went on sale in Europe in May and in the U.S. in June.

The rest of the competition is in disarray, and hasn't been able to capitalize in the same way on Apple's rigid release schedule and conservative design. Nokia Corp., until recently the world's largest phone maker, is in sharp retreat and is conducting a complete revamp of its smartphones. Research In Motion Ltd. is stuck with outdated software for its BlackBerrys at least until it launches a new operating system next year. HTC Corp. of Taiwan is suffering from marketing missteps in the last few years. LG Electronics, another Korean company, hasn't been able to keep up with Samsung when it comes to high-end phones, or with cheaper manufacturers on the low end.

Together, Samsung and Apple make half of the world's smartphones, and since competitors are losing money or breaking even, account for nearly all of the profits in the industry.

"Samsung is the only company that didn't really buckle under the weight of the iPhone 4S. Good, solid devices and good, solid marketing behind them," Llamas says.

Analysts now expect the new iPhone to arrive in September or October, probably with a slightly bigger screen. Sticking to one screen size has served Apple well, Baker says, but he sees the company moving with the times, as it's done many times before.

"When they have the reputation and the brand loyalty that they have, you don't have to be the first to market" with new features, Baker says. "You don't have to take that risk."