or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Court docs reveal Samsung sold 21M phones, 1.4M tablets worth $8B in US since 2010
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Court docs reveal Samsung sold 21M phones, 1.4M tablets worth $8B in US since 2010 - Page 3

post #81 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


It doesn't matter. It's still far, far lower than the number of iPhones that Apple sold in the US. So all the "Samsung sold more smartphones than Apple" stories were nonsense. You'd think that people would learn that making numbers up doesn't serve anyone.

Where did any market analysis in the past couple of years claim Samsung sold more smartphones in the US than Apple has? Yes, you'd think people would learn. . .

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #82 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

The numbers weren't made up. They were what Samsung told us. But then we learned they were telling the sell in numbers to the channel. Not the sell out to users, which is what is in these documents

Those numbers might just end up being a blessing in disguise for Samsung. Apple might've been better off comparing Samsung's numbers against the other manufacturers than their own. It makes Samsung look like a small fry instead of a worthy competitor.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #83 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


Take a good look at how they get those numbers. It's fraught with potential bias, statistically unsound calculations etc.

Absolutely agree for the most part (not sure about statistically unsound as I don't see a detailed explanation how the calculations were derived).

 

Those China/Europe/Worldwide numbers are based on snippets of market data combined with various methods of extrapolating and using additional indicators. Perhaps some educated guesses in there too. So there's a lot of assumptions probably being made, making these simply estimates. They're not "real" results, anymore than sales figures for a few specific US model smartphones are representative of the worldwide market which is what some posters are trying to prove based on those sales charts. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #84 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

And expect Samsung stock to get hammered tomorrow.

Why? They're a distant second but doing much better than those behind it
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #85 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

The numbers weren't made up. They were what Samsung told us. But then we learned they were telling the sell in numbers to the channel. Not the sell out to users, which is what is in these documents

Read what jragosta wrote again. He IS talking about 'sales' not 'sell in numbers to the channel.' The point is, consulting firms, journalists, and fandroids have often been reporting on or conflating the latter as 'sales.'

The reason for this is that companies like Samsung will not provide audited sales numbers. Obviously because the numbers are not as good as they slyly claim it is, and they don't want to look foolish. But a court document like this gets closer to the truth.
post #86 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo View Post

So, did this thread actually disappear or is my imagination running riot?

 

Quite smooth: Samsung actually sold 1/10 of the 2 million Galaxy Tabs it claimed in 2010


i saw that too but it doesn't exist apparently. Sammy claimed 2 million shipped world wide and only 260K were sold to end-users in the US. I highly doubt 1.7 million were sold outside of the US.

post #87 of 115
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #88 of 115
Just an aspect that I've not seen in this thread.

Given the contempt with which Samsung has been shown to treat the US court system and the antics they have already be caught at. What are the chances that the sales numbers they are releasing to the US courts are artificially low? I'm sure there are all kinds of ways Samsung could lose some significant fraction of their sales. After all, their internally calculated numbers have to be based on communication back from the actual sales channel and Samsung have already shown they play fast a loose with electronic communications. Also, there's little to no chance the entire sales channel will be subpoenaed so Apple can do their own calculation.

Perhaps Samsung see the writing on the wall and want to limit their US exposure to a damage award, as well as the "thumb a nose at the foreigners" attitude that appears to be a cultural game played across the east-west divide.

I would love to catch the analysts at some "pick numbers out of the wrong hat" game but this is a huge discrepancy that serves Samsung quite well right now (at least for damages calculations).

Do the numbers foot with Samsung's US tax returns?

What a grand turn of events. Must order in some more popcorn.
post #89 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Ha ha ha..... 1.4M tabets versus 34M sold. That is, a 4:96 ratio, matching up with the hard data we have from proxy indicators such as web traffic.

 

I hope the relentless fandroids will now shut up for good, and stop quoting the absolutely dumb shipment numbers trotted out by the absolutely dumb consulting firms for their gullible and the hopeful clients.

 

1.4M tablets seems quite smooth.

post #90 of 115

It leaves out the most popular models like the Galaxy Nexus and III S.  It would be like reporting Apples numbers and only using phones up to the 3G model....

post #91 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

As a side note, I won't be surprised if Apple is required to break down US iPhone sales by model before all is said and done in this case. That's something they've never done before. The charts submitted to the court so far show iPhone sales as a group rather than by model.

Not likely; the counter-claims by Samsung don't seem to impact individual models, at least as far as I understand.
post #92 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post


Not likely; the counter-claims by Samsung don't seem to impact individual models, at least as far as I understand.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't believe the 4S is included in Samsung patent claims, which is why the number of possibly-infringing iPhones noted at the bottom of the chart is around half the number of iPhones reported sold.

 

So to be clear, Samsung's patent claims don't apply to the 4S to the best of my knowledge.

 

EDIT: Confirmed that Samsung's IP infringement claims don't include the 4S. It would faster to confirm had AI not cropped off the source notes at the bottom of the original Apple doc. I eventually found it anyway.


Edited by Gatorguy - 8/10/12 at 10:51am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #93 of 115
I also feel numbers are cooked to reduce damage claims. Who is to check the authenticity of these?

How can Apple claim even 2 billion dollar of damages if average selling price is so less? What is profit per handset Samsung is earning ?

At 15% margin it is at 1.2 billion dollar.

Now compare .67 billion revenue in quarter 2 2012 with around 20 billion dollar revenue Samsung mobile division earned during the same period

Even if half of the revenue is from Smartphones , rest of the world sales is 15 times.
post #94 of 115
Numbers from american analytics companies regarding the world outside of the US should be taken with even more salt than numbers for the US. These geniouses know nothing about european consumers.

Norwegians buy whatever phone they want, don't give a crap about price and we change phones at an insane rate, almost as fast as tech- journalists.
Numbers from the two largest phone companies reveal that Samsung has one phone model in the top 10 so far in 2012. Galaxy S2 in number 3 spot. Number 1 is iPhone 4s, number 2 is iPhone 4. The rest are HTC,Sony and Nokia.

Providers subsidize most phones so all my students (8th grade) have smartphones in the Galaxy S2/HTC One price range, and I work out in the boondocks where people are all lower middle class by norwegian standards. The only smartphone NOT being heavily subsidized in Norway is the iPhone 4S, and still it oustsells everything else. And many students work outside of school so they can afford to upgrade to the 4S.

These numbers are of course not relatable to nations in asia and developing countries, but the swedish numbers are exactly the same, only theret he Galaxy S3 is in the 3rd spot, top two are the same as here.

Now Sweden does not have Norways cash reserves, and are not as protected from economic turmoil spreading from Greece, Italy and Spain. But still they buy expensive phones like there's no tomorrow.

For the european countries where the economy IS failing, most people don't buy the iPhone 4/4S because of the price. They also don't buy Samsung Galaxy phones or 1st tier android handsets in general. They buy older models that are cheap but still have most of the cool new features. One of these phones is the iPhone 3GS, which is guarranteed to run the latest version of iOS.
Getting the similarily priced competing phones won't even guarantee you Android 3.0

Based on my knowledge of consumer trends in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Germany, (which are the languages I can read national economic and tech news in) Apple has the most popular models in all the strong economies, and also one of the most popular phones among financially strapped europeans.

Of course this is only what I can read from the top providers in each country, directly from the sources who actually SELL the phones, so my numbers are just as speculative as those comming from financial advisors on Wall Street...
post #95 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Well going on the price of Samsung's high end phones and the average from the chart of $350 per "smartphone" sold, there are a hell of a lot of cheap phone's being sold to pull that average price down.

It looks like Android = Touchwiz on low powered phones for a majority of users.

Edit

Actually the average is $334 for 2012.

Touchwiz? Is this a slang similar to lacrosse in Canada?
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
post #96 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

As I mentioned earlier, I don't believe the 4S is included in Samsung patent claims, which is why the number of possibly-infringing iPhones noted at the bottom of the chart is around half the number of iPhones reported sold.

 

So to be clear, Samsung's patent claims don't apply to the 4S to the best of my knowledge.

 

EDIT: Confirmed that Samsung's IP infringement claims don't include the 4S. It would faster to confirm had AI not cropped off the source notes at the bottom of the original Apple doc. I eventually found it anyway.

You keep going about phones -- this must be the umpteenth time you've posted in this thread about how the smartphone numbers don't include the S for both Apple and Samsung, please know that we get that, and we heard you twice the first time.

 

A lot of the litigation is about the tablet as well, and those numbers -- 1.4M versus 34M -- are not only relevant, but accurate. That is the truly pathetic number.

post #97 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Yeah, but a lot of the litigation is about the tablet as well, and those numbers -- 1.4M versus 34M -- are not only relevant, but accurate.

No reason to doubt them as far as I know.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #98 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I've no idea how many of those sold, nor does anyone of us. Didn't ATT report the Note was their number two (or was it three?) seller at some point? Can't remember for sure. Would it be possible, perhaps even likely that at least a million Galaxy Nexus "Google" phones were sold among the various carriers? Could a combo of three or four other models make up a million or so? Maybe two million? Does any of that sound so unreasonable?

Yes it's certainly possible that worldwide Samsung sales numbers were less than estimated. Some may even say it's likely. I might even be one of those people. But iIt's also possible they weren't. The chart of sales for infringing devices can't be used to prove or disprove it as there's too many missing models, including hi-profile Nexus and Notes. Even my quick list wasn't meant to be all of them that Apple didn't target and require sales data for.

While I might agree that there's signs that estimates of their sales could be high, you're trying to prove it with a limited list of sales figures for specific models. It won't work as proof.

It isn't possible for any Samsung phone to be the most popular phone on AT&T, except for maybe a day or so. Last quarter, when Apple's sales went down because people are waiting for the new phone, AT&T stated that the iPhone was 73% of their smartphone sales. The quarter before, when people weren't yet thinking about the new phone in significant numbers, that percentage was 78.5%. Phone popularity there is, in order; 4S, 4, 3GS, then a Samsung, at much lower sales numbers.
post #99 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Did they? What were some of the percentages of smartphone sales as high-end being claimed by any of the market data companies? I don't recall any of them saying the most expensive models were outselling the mid or lower-tier ones. I might be wrong, but you'd have to give me a link to prove your claim. Personally I've always assumed that the entry level Samsung phones outsell the hi-end models, but I have no way to prove it and wouldn't make the mistake of claiming it as a fact.

Or perhaps you're stating this report is proof that sales of hi-end phones not listed in the chart were over-estimated? Again a link would be needed to establish a bit of validity for your claim, as well as your reasoning behind how you tie-in the chart of possible-infringing devices to determine sales of those not shown.

It's entirely possible that Samsung sales estimates in the US were too high. they also might have been too low. None of us know for certain. You and a couple of others are trying to prove it by relying on the reported sales of models that Apple specifically targeted, ignoring any sales contribution from those that they didn't. Wouldn't even you agree that methodology is fatally flawed?

Except for this chart of course, the only phone sales numbers Samsung gives out are their total shipping numbers for all their phones, and the occasional numbers for one model they feel has done particularly well. Those numbers could be for a month, three months, or six months. It's also usually their top line, or the one right below it. But other than that, no one knows what they ship, much less sell. A quarter ago we saw guesses from 32 million to 44.5 million. None of those numbers could be confirmed. The wild difference between the numbers show they're just a guessing game, with none of these firms knowing anything at all. It could be that even the lowest guess was too high.
post #100 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Where did any market analysis in the past couple of years claim Samsung sold more smartphones in the US than Apple has? Yes, you'd think people would learn. . .

This isn't about US sales numbers, but it illustrates what I've been saying about the uselessness of the guessing going around with Samsung's numbers. You'll notice that Samsung said that numbers were DOWN 10% on all their phones, and that smartphone shipments followed that trend. Yet, the guesses had the smartphone numbers from them going up!

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-04-27/samsung-apple-smartphone-sales/54584550/1
post #101 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Absolutely agree for the most part (not sure about statistically unsound as I don't see a detailed explanation how the calculations were derived).

Those China/Europe/Worldwide numbers are based on snippets of market data combined with various methods of extrapolating and using additional indicators. Perhaps some educated guesses in there too. So there's a lot of assumptions probably being made, making these simply estimates. They're not "real" results, anymore than sales figures for a few specific US model smartphones are representative of the worldwide market which is what some posters are trying to prove based on those sales charts. 

Be a bit more thuthful please. These weren't a "few" models, they were most of Samsung's models, and they likely accounted for a good 75% of what they sold here, including the Win Phone models.
post #102 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by softeky View Post

Just an aspect that I've not seen in this thread.
Given the contempt with which Samsung has been shown to treat the US court system and the antics they have already be caught at. What are the chances that the sales numbers they are releasing to the US courts are artificially low? I'm sure there are all kinds of ways Samsung could lose some significant fraction of their sales. After all, their internally calculated numbers have to be based on communication back from the actual sales channel and Samsung have already shown they play fast a loose with electronic communications. Also, there's little to no chance the entire sales channel will be subpoenaed so Apple can do their own calculation.
Perhaps Samsung see the writing on the wall and want to limit their US exposure to a damage award, as well as the "thumb a nose at the foreigners" attitude that appears to be a cultural game played across the east-west divide.
I would love to catch the analysts at some "pick numbers out of the wrong hat" game but this is a huge discrepancy that serves Samsung quite well right now (at least for damages calculations).
Do the numbers foot with Samsung's US tax returns?
What a grand turn of events. Must order in some more popcorn.

I've seen that argument from posters on the financial forums. But they are obviously fanboys from the language they use, and the insistance that Samsung's numbers can't possibly be that bad.

A company takes real risks if they submit documents are are false. It's highly doubtful that this is the case here. We can be pretty sure that Apple has their own ways of having some idea as to the actual shipments and sales of Samsung. If they think the numbers are wrong, we can be sure they will say so.
post #103 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by simpleankit View Post

I also feel numbers are cooked to reduce damage claims. Who is to check the authenticity of these?
How can Apple claim even 2 billion dollar of damages if average selling price is so less? What is profit per handset Samsung is earning ?
At 15% margin it is at 1.2 billion dollar.
Now compare .67 billion revenue in quarter 2 2012 with around 20 billion dollar revenue Samsung mobile division earned during the same period
Even if half of the revenue is from Smartphones , rest of the world sales is 15 times.

Thats simply not going to happen.
post #104 of 115
Originally Posted by melgross View Post
A company takes real risks if they submit documents are are false. It's highly doubtful that this is the case here.

 

Well, they DID lie about their numbers a few years ago. Since nothing has improved, why wouldn't they keep lying?

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #105 of 115

Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Those China/Europe/Worldwide numbers are based on snippets of market data combined with various methods of extrapolating and using additional indicators. Perhaps some educated guesses in there too. So there's a lot of assumptions probably being made, making these simply estimates. They're not "real" results, anymore than sales figures for a few specific US model smartphones are representative of the worldwide market which is what some posters are trying to prove based on those sales charts. 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by melgross View Post


Be a bit more thuthful please. These weren't a "few" models, they were most of Samsung's models, and they likely accounted for a good 75% of what they sold here, including the Win Phone models.

 

 

Of course they were only a few models Mel since they only listed US ones, and even then not all that were available for US sale. Are you another who feels they can extrapolate the worldwide results from US numbers alone? I would think you're sharper than that. I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you misunderstood what I wrote in the first place.


Edited by Gatorguy - 8/10/12 at 3:45pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #106 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Well, they DID lie about their numbers a few years ago. Since nothing has improved, why wouldn't they keep lying?

Not in court. Not here. That's a very dangerous game.
post #107 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Of course they were only a few models Mel since they only listed US ones, and even then not all that were available for US sale. Are you another who feels they can extrapolate the worldwide results from US numbers alone? I would think you're sharper than that. I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you misunderstood what I wrote in the first place.

They were most all of the models they sell here. Most of the rest of the models sold elsewhere are the same models with differing names.
post #108 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


They were most all of the models they sell here. Most of the rest of the models sold elsewhere are the same models with differing names.

... and?

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #109 of 115

let's just cut to the chase: all these reports from IDC and the rest - including global stats - are just plain old BS guesswork dishonestly presented as facts.

 

at best. 

 

at worst, they are taking bribes ... er, consulting fees, to skew them for some big client. does anyone seriously think Windows Phone 8 will have a bigger market share than iPhone by 2016? well, IDC does.

 

http://www.geekwire.com/2012/idc-trims-windows-phone-projections-sees-microsoft-2-2016/

 

the judge has ordered Samsung and Apple to disclose who they are paying in the blogsphere for whatever. i'm not sure how broad the disclosure has to be, but it should make great reading in a few weeks when it comes out. arrogant Apple ain't paying anyone (except ads of course). but Samsung? ah ...

post #110 of 115
Originally Posted by melgross View Post
Not in court. Not here. That's a very dangerous game.

 

*shrug* How would they ever be caught?

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #111 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

the judge has ordered Samsung and Apple to disclose who they are paying in the blogsphere for whatever. i'm not sure how broad the disclosure has to be, but it should make great reading in a few weeks when it comes out. arrogant Apple ain't paying anyone (except ads of course). but Samsung? ah ...

That was Judge Alsup, and it's in the nearly complete IP case between Google and Oracle. Nothing to do with Samsung and Apple.

 

BTW those reports of paid bloggers and journalists (!) are due next Friday.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #112 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by uguysrnuts View Post


Touchwiz? Is this a slang similar to lacrosse in Canada?

Touchwiz is samsungs own UI for android on there phones.

post #113 of 115
 if the phone is infringing, it doesn't matter where it's sold, but enforcing bans elsewhere would be (legally, right?) impossible… 

Not true. If it's found to be infringing US patents, it matters that it's sold IN THE US.

 

The very same phone could be found to not infringe German/Korean/Russian/Martian patents, and hence keep being sold there.

 

Anyway, what's I'm really interested in is "did Samsung really copy the iPhone with the goal of having people buy it thinking it is some kind of iPhone", as it has been claimed. As I've written elsewhere here, I'm absolutely against the Apple claims of "infringement" on software, not really convinced about the claims of infrigement on design (for obvious comparisons with what's done in cars or plane businesses... or I'd like to see Boeing banned from making several of the planes it makes to compete against Airbus ;) ), but I do definitely think that if Samsung did try to swindle the general public by selling "iPhones that are not iPhones", then they should be punished.

 

Of course, I have absolutely no idea if this is even remotely true.... I guess I don't understand anything to/in/of Marketing :D

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #114 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

... and?

Think. This is a US trial, not one for overseas models.
post #115 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

*shrug* How would they ever be caught?

It's notas hard as you think. If app,e really though that the figures were false, the court could appoint a forensic team to investigate them. There's no way a company could rework all of their numbers from suppliers, distributers, retailers, etc. it's far too much.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Court docs reveal Samsung sold 21M phones, 1.4M tablets worth $8B in US since 2010