or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple's iOS mobile web share calls into question reports touting Android sales supremacy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's iOS mobile web share calls into question reports touting Android sales supremacy - Page 3

post #81 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

1. It has about the same relevance as your first question.
2. Ha ha.
3. You don't understand much about financial reporting, so best to not sound off. You obviously didn't read or understand the article. Or, it's likely that you wouldn't have understood it even if you read it.

1. Nope, mine was relevant, and it still hasn't been answered.
2. What? You find a fact funny? That explains a lot I suppose.
3. What I understand is what Apple documented in their financial reports, maybe you should read them
post #82 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

ROTFLMAO. You've never seen a BOGO deal? Do you live on the moon? They advertise them on the radio and TV all the time here.

Nope, I have never seen a BOGO cellphone deal. Like 96% of the worlds population, I do no live in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

As for Android feature phones, the answer is the same as the last ten times you asked the question and I provided multiple examples. I'm tired of looking it up for you and providing the answer since you're simply going to ignore it, anyway. Google 'android feature phone' and look at the results. There are many phones being sold that the manufacturer calls a feature phone - and that's a pretty good definition (especially since, if anything, they're going to want to call the borderline phones 'smartphones' if they can get away with it).
[/quote

I have never seen you reponse 10 times (I haven't asked 10 times, so I don't know why you would reply 10 times).

If you are going to state something as fact, back it up, otherwise it is basically rubbish. Now list why you can't call these android based phones as smartphones.

I googled as you requested, all that was returned was lists of features of Android phones. If the phones meet the definition of a smartphone, guess what, that makes them a smartphone. You said "There are many phones being sold that the manufacturer calls a feature phone", please list these "many phones"
post #83 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Are you Android shills so totally incapable of using a search engine? Do it without the quotes. There are 56,000,000 hits on Bing. Many of them are exactly what I've said they are.

I bet you feel real tough calling people shills
/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I've already cited plenty of examples before, but since you apparently can't figure out how to use a search engine:

I can use one, and I didn't use quote marks
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsung-might-unveil-as-many-as-8-Android-smartphones-in-Q1-2013_id39213
(Talking about new phones to be released in 2013):
"there is even an update to Samsung's Star feature phone,"

Did you read the title of that articule? Do you know what the word "might" means?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Then things like the Pantech Swift which is specfically listed as a feature phone:
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Pantech-Swift-for-AT-T-is-a-teen-friendly-QWERTY-feature-phone_id31084

That's not an Android phone
post #84 of 128

There's nothing questionable here. The MAJORITY of Android phones are cheap laggy shitty sub $100 phones (no contract) that are excruciatingly slow. They can never be used to surf the web or download any app. 

post #85 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

1. Nope, mine was relevant, and it still hasn't been answered.
2. What? You find a fact funny? That explains a lot I suppose.
3. What I understand is what Apple documented in their financial reports, maybe you should read them

1. Of course you would think so. Lol.
2. An assertion is not a fact.
3. Perhaps you should understand the phrase 'channel inventory', what the article says about that, and might wonder why no one other than Apple provides that information.

You're just sounding like a paid shill at this point. That's your wont, but I wish you'd stop polluting these boards.
post #86 of 128

Let me offer another perspective. Many of these iOS vs. Android web stats are very unreliable. I'm not sure how NetMarketShare.com determines if something is Android. I do know that Akamai and Piwik both seriously botch device detection (Akamai counts several Android browsers as their desktop versions, and Piwik counts them as Safari). Apparently folks have difficulty writing working regex's for User Agent Strings.

 

This same User Agent string brokenness extends to web sites themselves. Far too many of them will give you the phone version of their site if they match "Android" in the browser string, regardless if you're using a phone or a tablet. This isn't too much of a problem on a 7" tablet in portrait mode, but it's a major problem on 10" tablets in landscape mode. Any site using WordPress' WPTouch plugin shows this behavior. Many web admins are fairly unresponsive to requests to fix their UA sniffing. Personally, I encounter this situation so often that I have a canned email I send asking admins to change their sites and providing reference documentation.

 

As you can imagine, it's really frustrating to get jumbo-size phone sites on 10" tablets. So many Android users just stop browsing the web on them or install a third-party browser that fakes a desktop User Agent string. Both of these will skew the stats.

 

So it has nothing to do with Android users being stupid or poor, or the devices being junky. It's very often a lack of attention to detail by sysadmins.

 

For reference: You can distinguish between an Android phone and a tablet by checking for the "Mobile" keyword in the User Agent string and redirecting to the mobile site only if it's present. This will work for the stock browser (and embedded WebViews), Chrome, and Firefox. 

 

Stock Android Browser: http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/12/android-browser-user-agent-issues.html

Chrome for Androidhttps://developers.google.com/chrome/mobile/docs/user-agent
Firefox for Android: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Gecko_user_agent_string_reference#Android

post #87 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by xtacee1990 View Post

There's nothing questionable here. The MAJORITY of Android phones are cheap laggy shitty sub $100 phones (no contract) that are excruciatingly slow. They can never be used to surf the web or download any app. 

 

Okay, you're saying that the sales figures are correct, and it's just the surfing is different.. so the thread's main article is wrong?   Look folks, we have to keep things straight.  The two main theories are based on:

 
  • SALES - This thread's base article was based on the assumption that Android and iOS devices would have similar web usage, and therefore a large web usage difference must be evidence that the sales figures were incorrect:  "The fact that iOS is more than twice as popular on the web as all Android devices combined calls into question market statistics by research firms such as IDC..."

 

(The article also conflates overall smartphone and tablet web usage, yet the IDC figures were only about tablets.)
 
  • WEB USAGE - Other posters like this one are saying that it's actually Android and iOS web usage that's radically different (which was the most recent claim of fansite articles before this one), not the sales figures.

 

Either one assumption is wrong, or more likely, there's a combination factor here that all the opinions so far are missing.
 
Everyone might want to read the reports that were used as the basis for this article.  (Some here have asked questions like "How do you know how many e-Readers were sold", which is answered in those sources.) 
 

01/31 - Here is the original IDC report, with its estimated WORLD tablet sales.

01/31 - Here is the CNN article which talked about the IDC report.

02/01 - Here is the second CNN article, referencing the Net Applications web report.

02/01 - Here is this thread's article, using the second CNN article as its source.

 

Re: User Agent Strings.  There's also the fact that the Silk server-assisted browser used by the Kindle Fire looks very similar to the one for a desktop running Safari 5.0.   Who knows if those are being counted correctly (if they're not, for example, then that would blow my theory about Fires not being used for surfing, but would explain their low web usage count.)

 

There's a lot of missing and/or bad data and assumptions, for sure. 

post #88 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Okay, you're saying that the sales figures are correct, and it's just the surfing is different.. ....... blah blah...... There's a lot of missing and/or bad data and assumptions, for sure......

 

.... a problem which would be solved in one stroke if Android manufacturers put out sales and channel inventory numbers! And if Google would start reporting segment data for its Android-related revenue.

 

You Androiders keep avoiding the question: why do you think they keep avoiding the opportunity to shed light on something so simple, considering the news on market share for them, according to you all, is so good!?

post #89 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

 

.... a problem which would be solved in one stroke if Android manufacturers put out sales and channel inventory numbers! And if Google would start reporting segment data for its Android-related revenue.

 

You Androiders keep avoiding the question: why do you think they keep avoiding the opportunity to shed light on something so simple, considering the news on market share for them, according to you all, is so good!?

From all 500+ licensed Android product manufacturers??

 

Some with varying reporting periods and perhaps different methods of tracking channel inventory if they do so at all? And someone, who I assume you think should be Google, is tasked with aggregating each of the 500+ licensee manufacturing numbers collected on some specific day, then gather inventory channel numbers for hundreds (thousands?) of products numbers at thousands of distribution outlets as of that day too, somehow convincing them Google should have access to their business inventory. Easy-peesy.

 

So you're kidding, right, just forgot the /s tag?


Edited by Gatorguy - 2/3/13 at 10:42am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #90 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

From all 500+ licensed Android product manufacturers??

 

Some with varying reporting periods and perhaps different methods of tracking channel inventory if they do so at all? And someone, who I assume you think should be Google, is tasked with aggregating each of the 500+ licensee manufacturing numbers collected on some specific day, then gather inventory channel numbers for hundreds (thousands?) of products numbers at thousands of distribution outlets as of that day too, somehow convincing them Google should have access to their business inventory. Easy-peesy.

 

So you're kidding, right, just forgot the /s tag?

Why am I not surprised at this comment.

 

Only in your peculiar way of thinking would you not see that the top four or five -- Samsung, LG, HTC, Huawei, Amazon -- would suffice.

 

Heck, I'd take just Samsung's numbers, since they're supposedly the most successful according to all sorts of guesstimates! lol.gif

post #91 of 128
my brother bought 3 android tablet for the kids at christmas (decision price based). 2 are now goosed, very, very sub standard charging connections have given up only 2 months later. kids plugging them in and out 10 times a day will always end up with bent pins etc. And they had to plugged in so often as the battery life was dreadful.

In relation to the story, the kids only us the tablets for games apps ( when they actually work, loads will install and not run) and a small bit of supervised youtube. I would imagine that this is a similar in many households.

And now its only 1/3 of the devices in operation, while the other 2 are returned.

95% of adults I know will opt for getting an iOS device as they have the money for it, but cant justify spending %u20AC300 on kids toys. So most real surfing done by them in my view.
post #92 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Why am I not surprised at this comment.

 

Only in your peculiar way of thinking would you not see that the top four or five -- Samsung, LG, HTC, Huawei, Amazon -- would suffice.

 

Heck, I'd take just Samsung's numbers, since they're supposedly the most successful according to all sorts of guesstimates! lol.gif

So if you were to guess, how many retailers, service providers and/or distributors over dozens of countries would have to coordinate and report their current inventory to each applicable manufacturer (Samsung, Huawai, etc.) as of a specific day, who would than report those to Google combined with their shipped numbers for a few hundred unique devices at that same specific point in time to satisfy your curiosity? 5 thousand? 10 thousand? More? And they go to that effort why? 

 

Either you're not serious or you're simply not thinking today IMO. Why isn't a report of unique device activations plenty close,  particularly since you've said you don't really care if every device is counted as long as the biggest 4 or 5 report channel numbers. 

 

 

EDIT: Here's the list of Samsung authorized resellers.. . in just the US!:

http://www.samsung.com/us/peaceofmind/authorized_resellers.html


Edited by Gatorguy - 2/3/13 at 12:44pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #93 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

.... a problem which would be solved in one stroke if Android manufacturers put out sales and channel inventory numbers! And if Google would start reporting segment data for its Android-related revenue.

You Androiders keep avoiding the question: why do you think they keep avoiding the opportunity to shed light on something so simple, considering the news on market share for them, according to you all, is so good!?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

From all 500+ licensed Android product manufacturers??

Some with varying reporting periods and perhaps different methods of tracking channel inventory if they do so at all? And someone, who I assume you think should be Google, is tasked with aggregating each of the 500+ licensee manufacturing numbers collected on some specific day, then gather inventory channel numbers for hundreds (thousands?) of products numbers at thousands of distribution outlets as of that day too, somehow convincing them Google should have access to their business inventory. Easy-peesy.

So you're kidding, right, just forgot the /s tag?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Why am I not surprised at this comment.

Only in your peculiar way of thinking would you not see that the top four or five -- Samsung, LG, HTC, Huawei, Amazon -- would suffice.

Heck, I'd take just Samsung's numbers, since they're supposedly the most successful according to all sorts of guesstimates! lol.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So if you were to guess, how many retailers, service providers and/or distributors over dozens of countries would have to coordinate and report their current inventory to each applicable manufacturer (Samsung, Huawai, etc.) as of a specific day, who would than report those to Google combined with their shipped numbers for a few hundred unique devices at that same specific point in time to satisfy your curiosity? 5 thousand? 10 thousand? More? And they go to that effort why? 

Either you're not serious or you're simply not thinking today IMO. Why isn't a report of unique device activations plenty close,  particularly since you've said you don't really care if every device is counted as long as the biggest 4 or 5 report channel numbers. 

EDIT: Here's the list of Samsung authorized resellers.. . in just the US!:


http://www.samsung.com/us/peaceofmind/authorized_resellers.html


Samsung somehow figured out that they sold 100 million Galaxy S series phones over the last 30 months... Link

But they can't tell us how many phones they sell in a single quarter?   1oyvey.gif

That's bullcrap. Samsung is a multi-billion dollar electronics corporation. They know EXACTLY how many units they produce, ship and sell. And I'm not one of those people who thinks Samsung phones just sit in a warehouse. They are reaching customers in record numbers.

But they must be keeping that information a secret for a reason.

MY THEORY: Samsung only officially reports sales of their flagship Galaxy S series... because they are afraid to report that their best selling phones across the globe are actually crappy $80 phones.

"We've sold 100 million flagship phones"   makes a better headline than   "we've sold 300 million garbage phones"
post #94 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

MY THEORY: Samsung only officially reports sales of their flagship Galaxy S series... because they are afraid to report that their best selling phones across the globe are actually crappy $80 phones.

"We've sold 100 million flagship phones"   makes a better headline than   "we've sold 300 million garbage phones"

That's no different than Apple lumping all it's iPhone sales together regardless of model is it? But you could absolutely be correct that Samsung would prefer as a rule not to break out sales by specific model so as not to reveal too much to competitors. Who does?

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #95 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

That's no different than Apple lumping all it's iPhone sales together regardless of model is it? But you could absolutely be correct that Samsung would prefer as a rule not to break out sales by specific model so as not to reveal too much to competitors. Who does?

And iPad sales, iPod sales, Mac sales. No breakdown of specific models.
"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 #96 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

That's no different than Apple lumping all it's iPhone sales together regardless of model is it? But you could absolutely be correct that Samsung would prefer as a rule not to break out sales by specific model so as not to reveal too much to competitors. Who does?

Very true. But the difference is... Apple does give out official numbers... for all their phones (not just a certain subset of phones)... every single quarter. Sure they're not broken down by individual model... but some could argue that the numbers for "the iPhone" are good enough. Apple has a very lean product line... only offering 3 models from mid to high-end.

Samsung, on the other hand, is a full-line smartphone manufacturer. They sell budget phones all the way up to high-end. Yet all we get from Samsung are a few "milestones" every so often about their flagship phones. Their only official statement on the matter is a cumulative total of one series of phones that dates back to 2010. It makes a great headline... but offers no information about the strength of their product line.

I understand the need for corporate secrecy... but I'd like some transparency.

Samsung's announcement of 100 million Galaxy S over 30 months is nice... but what about the other phones Samsung sold over the last 30 months? Or just the last 3 months?

Samsung's recent report also says that the Galaxy SIII sold 40 million in 7 months... with average daily sales of about 190,000 units.

That would be 18 million Galaxy SIII in a quarter... while analysts are pegging Samsung at 60 million total smartphones for the quarter.

So what were the other 42 million Samsung smartphones?

Galaxy SIII and Galaxy Note II might make up 1/3 of Samsung's sales... but what on Earth makes up the rest? Are they not proud of those sales?
post #97 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

That's no different than Apple lumping all it's iPhone sales together regardless of model is it? But you could absolutely be correct that Samsung would prefer as a rule not to break out sales by specific model so as not to reveal too much to competitors. Who does?

Yeah, Apple must have a tiny share of the profit share, that's why they must be coy about the product mix. /s

Give up, with the feeble excuses.

(Edit: Added a sentence).
Edited by anantksundaram - 2/3/13 at 6:35pm
post #98 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So if you were to guess, how many retailers, service providers and/or distributors over dozens of countries would have to coordinate and report their current inventory to each applicable manufacturer (Samsung, Huawai, etc.) as of a specific day, who would than report those to Google combined with their shipped numbers for a few hundred unique devices at that same specific point in time to satisfy your curiosity? 5 thousand? 10 thousand? More? And they go to that effort why? 

Either you're not serious or you're simply not thinking today IMO. Why isn't a report of unique device activations plenty close,  particularly since you've said you don't really care if every device is counted as long as the biggest 4 or 5 report channel numbers. 


EDIT: Here's the list of Samsung authorized resellers.. . in just the US!:



http://www.samsung.com/us/peaceofmind/authorized_resellers.html


Who cares about the silly links you keep posting, pretending to be serious.

If you don't know what your channel inventory is doing, you have no clue about our ability to sell your products. You don't know how to price, how to promote, how to advertise, how to manage your mix..... I could go on with such Business 101 stuff that perhaps eludes you.

There are only two possibilities: Samsung is a naive, unsophisticated company when it comes to marketing, distribution, and data collection/management, or they're embarrassed to admit facts.
post #99 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


Who cares about the silly links you keep posting, pretending to be serious.

If you don't know what your channel inventory is doing, you have no clue about our ability to sell your products. You don't know how to price, how to promote, how to advertise, how to manage your mix..... I could go on with such Business 101 stuff that perhaps eludes you.

There are only two possibilities: Samsung is a naive, unsophisticated company when it comes to marketing, distribution, and data collection/management, or they're embarrassed to admit facts.

So you're only curious about Samsung sales and inventory then, but OK with Google activation numbers being an accurate picture of the Android market. That's different.

 

There's a few reasons Samsung would choose be less specific than you like. You've named just two possibilities. The one they mentioned when they stopped doing so is that because of Apple lawsuits they were no longer going to offer specific numbers. Valid reason? Dunno.

 

It could instead be for competitive reasons, the same as Apple's reason to decline specifics on model sales. Maybe they're just lying and there really isn't much profit in their smartphone business and they'll eventually be caught by their stockholders. Or maybe they really do sell more smartphones than Apple whether you want to believe it or not.

 

Are their stockholders demanding more detail? If not then what would be the benefit to Samsung in satisfying your curiosity? I can't think of any.


Edited by Gatorguy - 2/3/13 at 7:40pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #100 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So you're ....OK with Google activation numbers being an accurate picture of the Android market. That's different.

You ran out of arguments, so now you're simply making up stuff? That's a new low, even for you. Pathetic.

Google's 'activation' numbers are a frickin' joke.
post #101 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The one they [Samsung] mentioned when they stopped doing so is that because of Apple lawsuits they were no longer going to offer specific numbers.

Cite?
post #102 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

1. Of course you would think so. Lol.
2. An assertion is not a fact.
3. Perhaps you should understand the phrase 'channel inventory', what the article says about that, and might wonder why no one other than Apple provides that information.

You're just sounding like a paid shill at this point. That's your wont, but I wish you'd stop polluting these boards.

1. Please explain? And why you are at it, why don't you answer the question
2. Again, please explain. And while you are at it please list all reasons why 100% of Android phones are not smartphones
3. I understand these concepts 100%. Do you understand Apples financial document?

Paid shill? What does that mean? Is that a new AI term to use when you can't think of a new arguement? Have you used the word troll too much today that you are now moving to shill? But by your own definition, do you not sound like a "paid shill"?
post #103 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Google's 'activation' numbers are a frickin' joke.

Please explain.
post #104 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

 

.... a problem which would be solved in one stroke if Android manufacturers put out sales and channel inventory numbers! 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

From all 500+ licensed Android product manufacturers??

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Only in your peculiar way of thinking would you not see that the top four or five -- Samsung, LG, HTC, Huawei, Amazon -- would suffice.

Heck, I'd take just Samsung's numbers, since they're supposedly the most successful according to all sorts of guesstimates! lol.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So if you were to guess, how many retailers, service providers and/or distributors over dozens of countries would have to coordinate and report their current inventory to each applicable manufacturer (Samsung, Huawai, etc.) as of a specific day, who would than report those to Google combined with their shipped numbers for a few hundred unique devices at that same specific point in time to satisfy your curiosity? 5 thousand? 10 thousand? More? And they go to that effort why? 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

There are only two possibilities: Samsung is a naive, unsophisticated company when it comes to marketing, distribution, and data collection/management, or they're embarrassed to admit facts.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So you're only curious about Samsung sales and inventory then, but OK with Google activation numbers being an accurate picture of the Android market. That's different.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


You ran out of arguments, so now you're simply making up stuff? That's a new low, even for you. Pathetic.

Google's 'activation' numbers are a frickin' joke.

No now you've come full circle and gone back to your problem being Google activation numbers.

 

So why all the noise about you'd be happy with the numbers if just four or five Android manufacturers would publish sales and channel inventory numbers, or even if just Samsung would? And you want to say I'm the one making stuff up. . .

 

So what would really be enough to prove to you Google's activation numbers either do or don't paint a fairly accurate picture of the Android market so far? Apparently it's not only the top four or five or "even just Samsung" reporting sales and channel. So it must be just as I originally posted. You'd only be satisfied (maybe) if over over 500 manufacturers were to coordinate sales and inventory numbers across 10's of thousands of individual re-sellers for a snapshot of the market as of some unified date. Good luck with that.

 

Like I said the first time, easy-peesy.1rolleyes.gif


Edited by Gatorguy - 2/4/13 at 4:09am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #105 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

There's a few reasons Samsung would choose be less specific than you like. You've named just two possibilities. The one they mentioned when they stopped doing so is that because of Apple lawsuits they were no longer going to offer specific numbers.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


Cite?

Absolutely. From July 2011 when they stopped reporting phone numbers.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904888304576475693866644746.html

 

 

SEOUL—Samsung Electronics Co. on Friday said it would stop disclosing sales figures and forecasts for its mobile phones and tablet computers, a step it attributed to business risks and that analysts said was probably due to its continuing legal battle with Apple Inc.

Samsung, the world's largest technology manufacturer by sales, has long been one of the most guarded companies in the electronics industry. The disclosure of cellphone shipments had been one of the rare morsels of product data that Samsung provided with its quarterly earnings announcements.

But when the company released second-quarter results Friday, the cellphone data were missing. And in a conference call with analysts, executives announced a "new information policy" that would reveal less data about cellphones and tablet computers.

"As competition intensifies, there are increased risks that the information we provide may adversely affect our own businesses," Robert Yi, Samsung's chief of investor relations, said on the call. He declined a request for further explanation.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #106 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Absolutely. From July 2011 when they stopped reporting phone numbers.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904888304576475693866644746.html


SEOUL—Samsung Electronics Co. on Friday said it would stop disclosing sales figures and forecasts for its mobile phones and tablet computers, a step it attributed to business risks and that analysts said was probably due to its continuing legal battle with Apple Inc.


Your interpretation is wrong. Samsung did not attribute it to the Apple lawsuit as you claimed. Samsung attributed it to 'business risks'. It was the analysts who said it was due to the lawsuit - and no one in their right mind puts much faith in their assertions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

Very true. But the difference is... Apple does give out official numbers... for all their phones (not just a certain subset of phones)... every single quarter. Sure they're not broken down by individual model... but some could argue that the numbers for "the iPhone" are good enough. Apple has a very lean product line... only offering 3 models from mid to high-end.

Samsung, on the other hand, is a full-line smartphone manufacturer. They sell budget phones all the way up to high-end. Yet all we get from Samsung are a few "milestones" every so often about their flagship phones. Their only official statement on the matter is a cumulative total of one series of phones that dates back to 2010. It makes a great headline... but offers no information about the strength of their product line.

I understand the need for corporate secrecy... but I'd like some transparency.

Samsung's announcement of 100 million Galaxy S over 30 months is nice... but what about the other phones Samsung sold over the last 30 months? Or just the last 3 months?

Samsung's recent report also says that the Galaxy SIII sold 40 million in 7 months... with average daily sales of about 190,000 units.

That would be 18 million Galaxy SIII in a quarter... while analysts are pegging Samsung at 60 million total smartphones for the quarter.

So what were the other 42 million Samsung smartphones?

Galaxy SIII and Galaxy Note II might make up 1/3 of Samsung's sales... but what on Earth makes up the rest? Are they not proud of those sales?

Agree. But more importantly, when Samsung was forced to release numbers in the trial, they turned out to be much lower than all the estimates that were flying around. I believe that the analysts consistently estimate on the high side.

For example:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151852/court-docs-reveal-samsung-sold-21m-phones-1-4m-tablets-worth-8b-in-us-since-2010
At the time, estimates were that Samsung was selling 35 M smartphones per year. They actually sold 21 M in two years.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #107 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post But more importantly, when Samsung was forced to release numbers in the trial, they turned out to be much lower than all the estimates that were flying around. I believe that the analysts consistently estimate on the high side.

For example:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151852/court-docs-reveal-samsung-sold-21m-phones-1-4m-tablets-worth-8b-in-us-since-2010
At the time, estimates were that Samsung was selling 35 M smartphones per year. They actually sold 21 M in two years.

Incorrect JR. I already pointed out your error, but apparently it's not convenient to your argument so you've chosen to ignore it?

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/155747/apple-overtakes-samsung-as-top-u-s-mobile-phone-vendor-for-first-time-in-q4-2012#post_2269472

From the AI article itself that you linked:

"It should be noted that not all of Samsung's product lineup is represented in the figures, only those which are alleged as infringing Apple's patents."

 

The 21M number you toss around applied only to those specific handsets that Apple brought suit against. That was hardly the entire line of Samsung phones available for sale. You knew that, or at least should have if you read the article..


Edited by Gatorguy - 2/4/13 at 5:20am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #108 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Your interpretation is wrong. Samsung did not attribute it to the Apple lawsuit as you claimed. Samsung attributed it to 'business risks'. It was the analysts who said it was due to the lawsuit - and no one in their right mind puts much faith in their assertions.

You're quite right, Samsung themselves did not blame it on Apple. It was business sources who came up with that association.  No doubt they noted the fact Apple had filed suit their major US lawsuit citing Samsung smartphones and tablets just two months prior, during that specific Samsung quarter where the decision was made to no longer publish numbers. Probably just happenstance though, right?

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #109 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post






No now you've come full circle and gone back to your problem being Google activation numbers.

So why all the noise about you'd be happy with the numbers if just four or five Android manufacturers would publish sales and channel inventory numbers, or even if just Samsung would? And you want to say I'm the one making stuff up. . .

So what would really be enough to prove to you Google's activation numbers either do or don't paint a fairly accurate picture of the Android market so far? Apparently it's not only the top four or five or "even just Samsung" reporting sales and channel. So it must be just as I originally posted. You'd only be satisfied (maybe) if over over 500 manufacturers were to coordinate sales and inventory numbers across 10's of thousands of individual re-sellers for a snapshot of the market as of some unified date. Good luck with that.

Like I said the first time, easy-peesy.1rolleyes.gif

Heh heh. At this point, the wall I am sitting next to makes more sense than your incoherent ramblings.

Look, the point is simple. Samsung claims to sell a lot. The only 'evidence' we have for that are guesstimates put out by consulting firms. Data on collateral items such as profits and web visits, combined with lack of actual audited data on sales tells us that they're making some stuff up. Most likely, they're selling cheap stuff to Indians and Chinese. (There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.)

People like you have a tough time accepting these simple facts. So all you can do is dissemble, misrepresent, obfuscate, make feeble excuses, and when ll else fails, try to change the topic. Fail.
post #110 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


Heh heh. At this point, the wall I am sitting next to makes more sense than your incoherent ramblings.

Look, the point is simple. Samsung claims to sell a lot. The only 'evidence' we have for that are guesstimates put out by consulting firms. Data on collateral items such as profits and web visits, combined with lack of actual audited data on sales tells us that they're making some stuff up. Most likely, they're selling cheap stuff to Indians and Chinese. (There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.)

People like you have a tough time accepting these simple facts. So all you can do is dissemble, misrepresent, obfuscate, make feeble excuses, and when ll else fails, try to change the topic. Fail.

So now it's all back to just Samsung again and really not Google activation nuumbers?? 1confused.gif Somewhere in there I'm sure you think you've proven something, or found some easy solution to determining Android market share. I don't think you really did.

 

I think we're at the end of any beneficial back and forth on the suggestion you originally made: "a problem which would be solved in one stroke if Android manufacturers put out sales and channel inventory numbers". By now everyone is getting confused.


Edited by Gatorguy - 2/4/13 at 5:38am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #111 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You're quite right, Samsung themselves did not blame it on Apple. It was business sources who came up with that association.  No doubt they noted the fact Apple had filed suit their major US lawsuit citing Samsung smartphones and tablets just two months prior, during that specific Samsung quarter where the decision was made to no longer publish numbers. Probably just happenstance though, right?

As usual, when caught out, you dissemble, by talking about 'business associates' (um... these are analysts..... I wonder what kind of 'business associates' to Samsung they are) or 'happenstance' (yeah.... sure...must be true because Gatorguy said so....)

Just so people know, here's what you said: "There's a few reasons Samsung would choose be less specific than you like. You've named just two possibilities. The one they mentioned when they stopped doing so is that because of Apple lawsuits they were no longer going to offer specific numbers."
Edited by anantksundaram - 2/4/13 at 5:38am
post #112 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So now it's all back to just Samsung again and really not Google activation nuumbers?? 1confused.gif

Yes. It took a while to get through, but you got it! Clap clap.
post #113 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


As usual, when caught out, you dissemble, by talking about 'business associates' (um... these are analysts..... I wonder what kind of 'business associates' to Samsung they are) or 'happenstance' (yeah.... sure...must be true because Gatorguy said so....)

Just so people know, here's what you said: There's a few reasons Samsung would choose be less specific than you like. You've named just two possibilities. The one they mentioned when they stopped doing so is that because of Apple lawsuits they were no longer going to offer specific numbers. Valid reason? Dunno. It could instead be for competitive reasons, the same as Apple's reason to decline specifics on model sales. Maybe they're just lying and there really isn't much profit in their smartphone business and they'll eventually be caught by their stockholders. Or maybe they really do sell more smartphones than Apple whether you want to believe it or not.

Hmm, "as usual" you've misstated what I said (I hope we never tire of "as usual" as it's just so effective1biggrin.gif). I never mentioned "business associates" but no matter.  Anyway, I added the rest of my quote that was inadvertently left out.


Edited by Gatorguy - 2/4/13 at 5:48am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #114 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Hmm, "as usual" you've misstated what I said (I hope we never tire of "as usual" as it's just so effective1biggrin.gif
). I never mentioned "business associates" but no matter.  Anyway, I added the rest of my quote that was inadvertently left out.

Actually, I agree, you used the vacuous term 'business sources,' not 'business associates.' My apologies.
post #115 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


Actually, I agree, you used the vacuous term 'business sources,' not 'business associates.' My apologies.

Fair enough. My apologies to you as well if I offended you.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #116 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Incorrect JR. I already pointed out your error, but apparently it's not convenient to your argument so you've chosen to ignore it?
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/155747/apple-overtakes-samsung-as-top-u-s-mobile-phone-vendor-for-first-time-in-q4-2012#post_2269472
From the AI article itself that you linked:
"It should be noted that not all of Samsung's product lineup is represented in the figures, only those which are alleged as infringing Apple's patents."


The 21M number you toss around applied only to those specific handsets that Apple brought suit against. That was hardly the entire line of Samsung phones available for sale. You knew that, or at least should have if you read the article..

And, of course, you're ignoring the fact that almost all of Samsung's biggest sellers were included in Apple's lawsuit - certainly almost everything that could be called a Smartphone.

Even with a few minor handsets not included, how do you explain that the estimates were 35 M per year while the actual numbers were 10.5 M per year?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #117 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


And, of course, you're ignoring the fact that almost all of Samsung's biggest sellers were included in Apple's lawsuit - certainly almost everything that could be called a Smartphone.

Even with a few minor handsets not included, how do you explain that the estimates were 35 M per year while the actual numbers were 10.5 M per year?

No, you're ignoring the fact it didn't prove what you say it did, even after being corrected about it more than once. It wasn't my claim to begin with (and where the heck is your 35M average per year figure coming from?)

 

Can we dispose of that little bit of JR FUD too now, throwing it in the same garbage bin as "all the Android feature phones being marketed and/or sold"?


Edited by Gatorguy - 2/4/13 at 6:29am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #118 of 128

StatCounter is out today with their latest mobile web usage statistics and they serve as evidence that KDarling is correct in surmising that the differnce in web usage comes down to tablets. StatCounter doesn't include tablet usage in it's numbers:

 

http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-ww-monthly-201201-201301

 

"With Nokia’s share of mobile internet usage down 15.52% from 37.67% last January to just 22.15% this year, Apple was able to move into the number one position for the first time ever despite experiencing a decline of 2.81%. Apple took 25.86% of mobile internet usage in January, down from 28.67% last year. Nokia was also bumped to third position with Samsung gaining 7.85% to move into the number two spot. However, it’s important to point out that StatCounter doesn’t include iPads in its definition of mobile devices.

As for mobile OS, StatCounter has at Android 37% of the market in January up from 33.19% in December. In comparison, iPhone and iPod held 25.85% of the global OS share, up from 23.26% in December. Keeping in mind that StatCounter doesn’t include iPads in these stats, we take also take a look at a report for January from NetApplications (pictured below) that has iOS with iPads included at 60.56% of the market during the month"

 

quote from 9to5 article.

 

Contrary to popular sentiment at AI, Android smartphones appear to use the internet substantially more than iOS iPods/iPhones, not less. 


Edited by Gatorguy - 2/4/13 at 7:41am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #119 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

StatCounter is out today with their latest mobile web usage statistics and they serve as evidence that KDarling is correct in surmising that the differnce in web usage comes down to tablets. StatCounter doesn't include tablet usage in it's numbers:

http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-ww-monthly-201201-201301

"With Nokia’s share of mobile internet usage down 15.52% from 37.67% last January to just 22.15% this year, Apple was able to move into the number one position for the first time ever despite experiencing a decline of 2.81%. Apple took 25.86% of mobile internet usage in January, down from 28.67% last year. Nokia was also bumped to third position with Samsung gaining 7.85% to move into the number two spot. However, it’s important to point out that StatCounter doesn’t include iPads in its definition of mobile devices.

As for mobile OS
, StatCounter has at Android 37% of the market in January up from 33.19% in December. In comparison, iPhone and iPod held 25.85% of the global OS share, up from 23.26% in December. Keeping in mind that StatCounter doesn’t include iPads in these stats, we take also take a look at a report for January from NetApplications (pictured below) that has iOS with iPads included at 60.56% of the market during the month"



 



quote from 9to5 article.



And, once again, we don't have any idea of whether this is representative of the market as a whole. Unless Statcounter either collects data from every site in the world or else can demonstrate that the sites they track are representative of the entire Internet, the data is not particularly useful.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #120 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

No, you're ignoring the fact it didn't prove what you say it did, even after being corrected about it more than once. It wasn't my claim to begin with

Please try to keep up. The entire discussion was whether all the stratospheric sales figures that all the Android shills and mindless analysts present are correct. I cited evidence that they're not - in the one case where we actually got sales figures, the analysts estimates were far, far too high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

(and where the heck is your 35M average per year figure coming from?)

That was the consensus figure at the time:
http://www.dailytech.com/Analysts+Expect+Blowout+Quarter+for+Samsung+Smartphone+Sales+of+35+Million/article23669.htm

However, I'm glad you made me come up with the link. The consensus was that Samsung would sell 170 M smartphones in a year, or 35 M in the first quarter of 2012.

The ACTUAL number (as shown in the trial) was for 21 M in the 8 quarters before June, 2012 (including the quarter that was supposed to be 35 M).

Yes, the 21 M figure did not include ALL Samsung smart phones, but it included all the most popular ones.

Surely even you can see that the discrepancy is so large that the analysts' estimates need to be taken with a grain of salt - particularly since there's not one shred of evidence that their estimates have any bearing on reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Can we dispose of that little bit of JR FUD too now, throwing it in the same garbage bin as "all the Android feature phones being marketed and/or sold"?

Considering that I provided examples of Android features phones, I guess you're getting used to losing arguments.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Apple's iOS mobile web share calls into question reports touting Android sales supremacy
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple's iOS mobile web share calls into question reports touting Android sales supremacy