or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung overtakes Apple as top 'smart connected device' vendor in 2012
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung overtakes Apple as top 'smart connected device' vendor in 2012 - Page 2

post #41 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by sip View Post

Shipments does not equal SALES

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick08 View Post

There is a differance between shipment and sales :P

Yes we get 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 #42 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmc54 View Post

shipped vs activation

more like  'connected vs connected to what'

 

I mean an apple device is connected to apple (iTunes, AppStore, iCloud, iOS 'halo' into AppleTV, MacOSX, even TimeCapsules).   This is a major revenue driver for Apple.

 

A samsung device is connected to anything but samsung (google, amazon, carrier, just plain old internet).  There is no ROI for samsung to be 'connected' to anything, other than the initial purchase.   How many Samsung wireless routers were sold last year?  What revenue did Samsung make on apps?  music? movies?

 

To apple 'Connected' means 2-10 years of revenue from that device owner.  To Samsung connected means 'see see, we're the best... buy us'  message to vendors and carriers.

post #43 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

So tell us about these 47 million "feature phones", what OS are they running?

 

Perhaps you are confused with dumb phones, such as this.

That one is running a Samsung proprietary OS. Perhaps Bada? Tizen? Don't know but it's certainly not Android.

http://www.samsung.com/au/consumer/mobile-phone/mobile-phone/mobile-phone/GT-E3300ZKAVAU-spec

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #44 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misa View Post

As always we're seeing "Shipped" not "sold"

No.

As always we're seeing confirmed "sold" for Apple and guessed "shipped" for everyone else

post #45 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/156111/samsung-overtakes-apple-as-top-smart-connected-device-vendor-in-2012#post_2282223"]Apple has never even tried to be #1 in market share, and when you think about it, it's pretty incredible that Apple sells as much as they do, since their products are not priced at bargain basement prices, like almost everybody else.

It's not hard to design Android phones, anybody with minimal talent could probably come up with a top selling Android phone design in five minutes. Just make the screen bigger than whatever is already out there, that's step number one. Don't worry if it's too big to hold or to use, or if the device won't fit in any normal person's pocket, just do it, don't sweat it. You also don't have to worry about the OS, since that is free, and provided by Google. When you choose your other parts, remember, numbers are the most important thing, and not the overall performance of your device, just go with whatever chips have big sounding numbers that will impress Fandroids who know nothing about specs and very little about tech in general.

As for the hardware design, most phones now are just a display that you hold in your hand, so keep it simple, take some inspiration (or a lot) from Apple, and there's your new Android phone. Have it come in both black and white of course, so that Fandroids and other jealous people will be able to emulate Apple owners, and these people can pretend that they have a brand new iPhone, and maybe they'll even be able to fool a few of their friends from a distance of at least 10 meters away.

And last but not least, price your device pretty damn cheap, remember who your customer base is. This group includes people who have recently filed for bankruptcy, people on welfare who have 13 kids, people who don't really care about tech, people who are just looking to replace their 10 year old feature phone and the most important group of all, people in "developing" countries whose yearly tech budget is less than 7 dollars.

I also take exception to the term smart connected device, as time and time again, the evidence has shown that nobody knows what the hell Fandroids are doing with their supposed "smart" devices, since they are so severely underrepresented on web stats. Something doesn't add up.

I agree with your point on developing markets. They are developing for a reason, and do not have a lot of disposable income, yet the pressure is on Apple to fill this niche as fast as possible. Some are worth paying special attention to just based on sheer population numbers like China and India, but if price is their main purchase driver, market share is the main gain while margins and profits are secondary. Analysts talk like these developing countries are going to be developed in the next year or two, when in reality it could take generations before it happens, if it happens at all. Plus once people are used to paying less, it's hard to get them out of that habit, even in developed nations. Apple has to be careful here, because if the phones are too stripped, that sours people on the brand. If they are full featured, why would they upgrade to the flagship? It will be interesting to see if Apple comes up with a new device that hits the sweet spot of this mix.
post #46 of 56
I am beginning to wonder if the Samsung juggernaut might be a blessing in disguise. Apple does best as an underdog nipping at the heels of a soulless corporate giant. With Microsoft neutralized, could Samsung be Apple's new bête noir? It just seems out of character for Apple to be the 900 pound gorilla. (Enough metaphors for you?)
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #47 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by nealg View Post

Both Samsung and Apple are doing well in the phone business. Samsung and Apple are not going away in the phone business anytime soon. Both companies have had a successful strategy when it comes to their "connected" business.

With that being said, is it so hard for some to believe that the definition of the phone that is included in the article is somewhat hazy making a real comparison difficult? Also different writers have biases both pro and anti Apple as well as pro and anti Android making things more complicated.

Personally, I don't like Samsung because I think they cheated their way to their present position. Many people complain about Apple complaining way too much about how Samsung copied this and that from them but now there is a second source, Nokia, saying that this is what Samsung did to them, essentially corroborating what Apple has been saying all along.

But no matter what the ethics of the situation, at least for right now, Samsung is doing well. The question is whether they can continue to perform at this high level. Apple has kept it up for going on 6 years now. It will be interesting to see where Samsung will be in 2-3 years, especially if Apple and Nokia take a good part of their component business away from them and they no longer get the first copier advantage away. Or maybe the biggest part of the copier's advantage has already happened and it won't have any effect at all.

As always, it will remain interesting.

You make a lot of sense. While it may be difficult to prove actual infringement no matter the initial verdict, it is fairly obvious that they copied Apple like they have copied others in the past. That said, it is the past and what is done is done. Now that they have the market flooded, will their profits continue to grow at the rate it has done recently? While Apple's have remained flat, it is still a huge number. Becoming a player is one thing but when you get there expectations change.
post #48 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by smalM View Post

No.
As always we're seeing confirmed "sold" for Apple and guessed "shipped" for everyone else

Show me on the chart where it shows 'confirmed "sold"' for Apple. Using only the chart in the article only.
"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 #49 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

With Microsoft neutralized

Really? You mean they're gone? Since when? Are they in bankruptcy court? Auctioning off assets?
"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 #50 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Apple has never even tried to be #1 in market share, and when you think about it, it's pretty incredible that Apple sells as much as they do, since their products are not priced at bargain basement prices, like almost everybody else.

 

It's not hard to design Android phones, anybody with minimal talent could probably come up with a top selling Android phone design in five minutes. Just make the screen bigger than whatever is already out there, that's step number one. Don't worry if it's too big to hold or to use, or if the device won't fit in any normal person's pocket, just do it, don't sweat it. You also don't have to worry about the OS, since that is free, and provided by Google. When you choose your other parts, remember, numbers are the most important thing, and not the overall performance of your device, just go with whatever chips have big sounding numbers that will impress Fandroids who know nothing about specs and very little about tech in general.

 

As for the hardware design, most phones now are just a display that you hold in your hand, so keep it simple, take some inspiration (or a lot) from Apple, and there's your new Android phone. Have it come in both black and white of course, so that Fandroids and other jealous people will be able to emulate Apple owners, and these people can pretend that they have a brand new iPhone, and maybe they'll even be able to fool a few of their friends from a distance of at least 10 meters away.

 

And last but not least, price your device pretty damn cheap, remember who your customer base is. This group includes people who have recently filed for bankruptcy, people on welfare who have 13 kids, people who don't really care about tech, people who are just looking to replace their 10 year old feature phone and the most important group of all, people in "developing" countries whose yearly tech budget is less than 7 dollars.

 

I also take exception to the term smart connected device, as time and time again, the evidence has shown that nobody knows what the hell Fandroids are doing with their supposed "smart" devices, since they are so severely underrepresented on web stats. Something doesn't add up.

 

I accept that Android is badly underrepresented in "web stats", but what kind of traffic is counted in those stats?

Does the JSON feed powering my favourite sports app get counted as "web traffic"?

How about that web app that operates on an obscure custom port?

What about instant messaging apps? IMAP/POP email?

 

I'd really like to know what traffic is being talked about here because a huge chunk of what I do online isn't HTTP and isn't on port 80 or 443.

 

Unless the stats include all app generated traffic then it's hard to say anything about what users are actually doing with their phones.

post #51 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

I accept that Android is badly underrepresented in "web stats", but what kind of traffic is counted in those stats?

Does the JSON feed powering my favourite sports app get counted as "web traffic"?

How about that web app that operates on an obscure custom port?

What about instant messaging apps? IMAP/POP email?

 


You're trying to be cute here in order to belittle others (which some of them deserve). These folks are primarily "quoting" reports from various sources (including ad companies). If you're sincerely interested, it's not hard to find out how these reports define web usage.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

I'd really like to know what traffic is being talked about here because a huge chunk of what I do online isn't HTTP and isn't on port 80 or 443.

 

True.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

 

Unless the stats include all app generated traffic then it's hard to say anything about what users are actually doing with their phones.

 

Untrue.

 

Having said all this, it is no longer accurate to say that Android phones are not represented in web stats. If tablets are removed from the mix, Android devices are at least neck and neck with iPhones/iPod-Touches in accessing the web (based on ad impressions, for "inquiring" minds). So, those who are truly interested in being informed and not just defending (unnecessarily) the Apple moat, this is another metric that you can no longer use to deny the surge of Android.


Edited by stelligent - 2/22/13 at 3:04pm
post #52 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

It no longer matters at all whether JR is ever able to show that "somewhere out there" is an Android feature-phone. IF there is the number is so infinitesimal it's not worthy of mention as a factor in "smart-device market share" claims (bogus anyway in my view), Android activation numbers or estimated smartphone shipments for Samsung, Moto or anyone else. It's just one of his red herrings.

IMHO he needs to change the claim to something not as easily questioned.  Suggestion: "Some Android owners use their phone like a feature phone" might work.

Nonsense.

I provided a number of links where the manufacturer calls the phone a feature phone and says it's running Android. There were plenty more the last time. And plenty more where people admit that it's possible to have a feature phone running Android.

No matter how much you whine and moan, all I need is a single example of an Android feature phone - and I've shown that many times over.

And even if it weren't true, it's irrelevant. The point that you Android shills keep ignoring is that Apple doesn't need to match all Android sales. They're selling into only high end smartphones. Even if you want to call those crapware feature phones 'smartphones', it's not the segment Apple is competing in - and never will be. What you're doing is saying that Ferrari isn't relevant in the sports car market because Chevrolet sells more cars.
"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 #53 of 56
Wow what a surprise. Another low ball estimate from IDC whose surveys always put apple at the bottom and at a lower number than any of apples main competitors. The fact that these numbers are pulled out of IDC arse because samsung does not provide shipped numbers or sold numbers at all makes these type of "surveys" no better than junk e mail.
post #54 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Really? You mean they're gone? Since when? Are they in bankruptcy court? Auctioning off assets?

Of course not. But the relationship between them has turned upside down since the bad old days when Apple's only product was a computer and its OS. Microsoft has been neutralized as a competitor because Apple's new iOS products dominate their bottom line, and Microsoft has not been able to flip it back on them. Maybe some day, but not yet. My point was that Samsung is the competitor to Apple that Microsoft used to be, albeit on a different field entirely.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #55 of 56
It takes a LOT to sustain and compete at the high end for a long time. Even a company with the resources of Microsoft could not manage it. Apple has demonstrated it's innovation over 35 years now, and to some extent have ensured that this innovative spark continues even after the demise of Jobs.

It will be interesting to see where Samsung is 3 years from now, when the industry is probably completely changed.
post #56 of 56
Is it possible that when we got the new Appleinsider webpage, what we hadn't been told was that Samsung had bought Appleinsider?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung overtakes Apple as top 'smart connected device' vendor in 2012