or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › 10M Samsung flagship phones in 28 days a 'record,' 5M iPhone 5 in 3 days 'disappointing'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

10M Samsung flagship phones in 28 days a 'record,' 5M iPhone 5 in 3 days 'disappointing' - Page 5

post #161 of 192

knowing well both platforms iOS and Android, I can clearly put following:

 

- fragmentation of Android is very annoying to the degree that some of developers actually give up developing on it after few flops

- I see so many compatibility, reliability, security, reliability and quality issues at Android that it makes me very clear in my believe that Android phones are being used mainly as phones and game consoles and not as smartphones

- so-called premium Android devices, like Samsung S3,S4, Galaxy Tab 2,.. perform so crappy compared to Apple's that reasonable person does not  understand how is somebody prepared to give same money for Samsung device as for Apple's.

- majority of Samsung's customers are ignorant people being persuaded mainly from mobile operator staff being bribed under the table and sometimes forced by management due to lower subsidies, being stupid enough to do this knowing that they earn much less with data transfer later

- Samsung has  very large percentage of premium users being Apple haters, frustrated from young age not being willing to pay more for Mac computers as for wintel crap, being computer "experts", calculating Gb and GHz from young age and trying to impress some less fortunate girls and of course: they NEVER did anything useful on computer...

 

What is clear to me is also following:

 

- smartphone introduction period is not yet over, but it's coming to an end

- during that period majority of people were just buying smartphones

- as smartphone usage matures, people will start to look at it more seriously and caring more and more about quality

- this will bring problems for company like Samsung, and open new opportunity for APple. Samsung is the one with problems on horizon, not Apple, because Samsung cannot either innovate or bring on the market high quality product for a reasonable price.

post #162 of 192
Samsung was found in Taiwan to have hired many people to post favourable messages on local forums criticising HTC and other smartphone brands. You can easily see why such a piece of trash with a blue-ish screen and plastic case could earn so much praise in the media.
post #163 of 192
Originally Posted by realitychecks View Post
I'm being contributory…

 

We have quite a different definition of "contributory".

post #164 of 192
Samsung could also pay some writers to write something good for themselves. Isn't that what Apple did sometimes? However, I see the weakness in Apple in terms of publicity. Jobs seemed to work very hard and constant on creating buzz on Apple products. But Cook has not done any work in that area to public. He seems to keep working as he used to be under Jobs to us. That's his fault. He need to realize what Jobs has done in terms of publicity. He could say that Jobs had a natural talent for it. But that does not mean Cook shouldn't learn from what Jobs did. Although Jobs kindly instructed that Cook lead Apple in his own way, if Cook can't perform in public conference for demonstrating his ability to sell products, he should hire someone who inspires public at least.
Samsung's CEO copies Jobs style in many aspects. However, as you know, Asian at large tend to be copy cats. I know it because I am an Asian. We tend to be specialized in copying ideas and products and make them better. But remember, Rolls Royce is much better product than Hundai Sonata. I never compared the number but I guess Hundai cars are sold in much more volume than those of Rolls Royce in both short and long terms. This is the kind of things that Cook should say in public responding to those articles like Jobs did.
post #165 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by okubo View Post

He need to realize what Jobs has done in terms of publicity. He could say that Jobs had a natural talent for it.

 

Uh-huh.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #166 of 192
Originally Posted by okubo View Post
Isn't that what Apple did sometimes?

 

No. Period.


But Cook has not done any work in that area to public. 

 

Your proof of this being what? Ignoring everything done since Jobs died? Great proof.


He seems to keep working as he used to be under Jobs to us. That's his fault.

 

On the contrary, it's what makes him great. It's his "fault" that he's performing the task at which he's phenomenal?


He need to realize what Jobs has done in terms of publicity.

 

OH GEEZ I HOPE HE SEES YOUR SINGLE POST ON THIS SINGLE WEBSITE, OTHERWISE THERE'S NO WAY HE COULD POSSIBLY HA—I can't keep this up.


This is the kind of things that Cook should say in public responding to those articles like Jobs did.

 

That's the exact opposite of anything Cook should say in public.

post #167 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by realitychecks View Post


But my comments have been extremely pro Apple. Do I really have to think iOS is perfect to not be trolled by the moderator?

Your problem is many things you say are inaccurate.  This is un-Apple.  Try compare iPhone specs with Galaxy S4 specs.  Apple has been very honest with facts. This is one important thing Samsung, Amazon, Google has not been willing to copy.  

post #168 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

Again, he is right.

 

Despite all the shortcomings of the galaxy, the big screen (despite weak) makes a huge difference.

If Apple releases one, oh boy... It would quickly become the best selling device.

 

But, um, iPhone already is the "best selling device", isn't it?

 

Samsung may sell more "handsets" (across 100 or more different models), but the Galaxy S4 itself (or the S3) is not selling better than the iPhone itself, afaik...

 

And as far as being "right" about screen size, we're talking about FONT SIZE here? A one-inch larger screen doesn't mean they suddenly jump from 10 to 12 point across all text. He's right that any 'reading difficulty' is solved in settings. And finally, I've held an oversized phone up to my head and it feels exactly as described, oversized. I want more screen real estate, I'll buy a tablet. Like an iPad… oh, already did that. never mind. And my phone is PHONE sized, and that works for me. 

 

The fonts are still the same size regardless of screen size...

post #169 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by realitychecks View Post


People think Apple invented the smartphone period (no one here I don't think or on any tech site but out in the world), they think they invented capacitive screens, multi touch, installable apps, MP3 players, tablets, the mouse, the GUI, and that's all I can think of.

There would probably be a lot less resistance to giving credit where credit is due if people didn't try and give ALL credit where it isn't due.

 

Actually, I think they did invent the mouse, didn't they…? And they saw an early "GUI" concept which they developed into something broadly usable by the inexperienced public. Steve Jobs' name is on a huge number of patents. That's invention.  I get your point, but let's not err in reverse as well… 

 

Apple's genius isn't exclusively about "invention" anyway, so much as recognizing good ideas and inventing ways to productize/monetize them, incorporating them into new or existing products, and finding/extending ideas that make a difference to how we experience our lives.

 

First iPhone then iPad, both altered the way I live and interact with data (and even people) in pretty substantial ways. Those devices combine their own direct inventions with a huge array of "other people's ideas realized". 

 

There's a lot of credit given for introducing an idea for the first time, even if you're not the person who dreamed it up. It's hard to differentiate that mentally without reading all the names on the many patents involved...

 

The human mind sorts and simplifies information like this. We will often remember the person (or company) who first made a thing RELEVANT as its "inventor", rightly or wrongly. It doesn't make a lot of sense to pick at those generalizations, unless there's an egregious error (or misleading by intent) being made...

post #170 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

But in the case of the smartphone, for example, yes they existed before the iPhone.  Apple didn't invent the smartphone.  

 

It's true the TERM existed before iPhone did.

 

But if you show me a picture with a bunch of before and after iPhones handsets, and asked me today to "Define the first smartphone…" I'd probably point to an iPhone.

 

They redefined what that label means. Made it really smart, not just a pretty name. Everything a so-called "smartphone" could do in those days PLUS an internet connection with full-featured browser and email, a full iPod, camera, calendar, contacts, etc. etc. tied together with iTunes and MobileMe auto-synching with a multi-touch screen and gui… they boldly went where no-one had gone before.

 

People called some devices "smartphones" before the iPhone came along, but I think it was Apple that gave the label real meaning.

 

If you redefine a thing, I guess one could say you also RE-invented it…?

post #171 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

 

 

The court document revealed Samsung 2010 US sales only. *yawn*

 

It doesn't matter when, we're discussing the behavior, not the actual sales numbers or time period. The yawn disappears when you realize how egregiously they were representing their falsified numbers before those court documents revealed the reality of their market position… it set them up to be seen as outright liars, and nothing less.

 

That 'smoke and mirrors' behavior clearly continues. There is no question that they're growing and increasing profit/share… a great deal of that on the back of Apple's IP and creativity.

 

I will never forget that image of Samsung handsets before and after iPhone. That tells the whole story.

post #172 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

 

Not really..   HTC, Sony and other Android manufacturer's achieved the level of sales / profit Samsung did. 

 

Sure, how can the American press favor a US company that funnels' most of its profit to oversea subsidiaries and employee slave-wage laborers (cough*)?  ;)

 

PROFITS: Apple does not "funnel most of its profit to overseas subsidiaries". That's a false narrative and completely, unequivocally wrong. They keep the profits EARNED ABROAD (and only those profits earned abroad) in accounts abroad, to avoid being DOUBLE TAXED at the maximum corporate rate of 35% if they were to bring those profits to the US. They do NOT "funnel" profits from domestic earnings to those overseas accounts. What you said is simply a falsehood trotted out by trolls, competitors and anti-Apple hacks. Why are you misrepresenting the facts?

 

WAGES: Wages are always measured relative to the local labor market. RELATIVE to American median income, Chinese labor is very inexpensive. RELATIVE to Chinese median wages, Apple pays an above-average wage and enforces fair labor practices (like preventing excessive overtime, etc.). Why are you misrepresenting the facts?

 

You managed two complete falsehoods in a single sentence and implied Apple.

post #173 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post


In a number of countries Apple does not sell directly to end users, they sell via an reseller, they have no visibility into the location of phones with these resellers

 

And those represent what % of their total sales do you suppose? I'm thinking low single-digits… like, nearly fractional… Considering Apple's distribution network, there's little left to unknowns.

 

They seem to have a clear and confident handle on SALES and Channel Inventory (which they differentiate, which implies they have a pretty accurate sense of the numbers).

 

Your point is pretty moot when the market space you're referring to is such a small fraction of the rest...

post #174 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

 

And those represent what % of their total sales do you suppose? I'm thinking low single-digits… like, nearly fractional… Considering Apple's distribution network, there's little left to unknowns.

 

They seem to have a clear and confident handle on SALES and Channel Inventory (which they differentiate, which implies they have a pretty accurate sense of the numbers).

http://allthingsd.com/20121003/apple-stores-get-the-glory-but-retail-partners-shoulder-load/

 

FWIW Apple also has not stated the methods used to determine channel inventory. We assume it's an estimate at least partially based on physical inventory counts from their distribution partners, but Apple doesn't say that.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #175 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

And those represent what % of their total sales do you suppose? I'm thinking low single-digits… like, nearly fractional… Considering Apple's distribution network, there's little left to unknowns.

They seem to have a clear and confident handle on SALES and Channel Inventory (which they differentiate, which implies they have a pretty accurate sense of the numbers).

Your point is pretty moot when the market space you're referring to is such a small fraction of the rest...

In Samsung's case that market space is a large portion of it's inexpensive phones thus reason why it's much harder for them to know how much they sold to the end user.
"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 #176 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

Actually, I think they did invent the mouse, didn't they…? And they saw an early "GUI" concept which they developed into something broadly usable by the inexperienced public. Steve Jobs' name is on a huge number of patents. That's invention.  I get your point, but let's not err in reverse as well… 

Apple's genius isn't exclusively about "invention" anyway, so much as recognizing good ideas and inventing ways to productize/monetize them, incorporating them into new or existing products, and finding/extending ideas that make a difference to how we experience our lives.

First iPhone then iPad, both altered the way I live and interact with data (and even people) in pretty substantial ways. Those devices combine their own direct inventions with a huge array of "other people's ideas realized". 

There's a lot of credit given for introducing an idea for the first time, even if you're not the person who dreamed it up. It's hard to differentiate that mentally without reading all the names on the many patents involved...

The human mind sorts and simplifies information like this. We will often remember the person (or company) who first made a thing RELEVANT as its "inventor", rightly or wrongly. It doesn't make a lot of sense to pick at those generalizations, unless there's an egregious error (or misleading by intent) being made...
Actually I think Doug Englebart was the first to demo a mouse back in the 60s.
post #177 of 192

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

It doesn't matter when, we're discussing the behavior, not the actual sales numbers or time period. The yawn disappears when you realize how egregiously they were representing their falsified numbers before those court documents revealed the reality of their market position… it set them up to be seen as outright liars, and nothing less.

 

The misrepresentation was more from articles that didn't explain what the numbers were about.  They left out a couple of critical factors:

 

  • The sales numbers in the trial were only US sales, and only of accused models. 
  • Samsung sells up to 25 times as many devices outside the USA.

 

So when some "reporters" seized on the smaller US number as "proof" that Samsung's worldwide sales for that quarter must be false, they were being ignorantly parochial.

 

 

post #178 of 192
People really worry about the numbers race a bit much.

Doesn't matter to me if Samsung sold 10 billion phones and Apple sold 1 million phones. If Samsung had a better phone that works for me, I'd have one. I'm sticking with Apple because I like their products.
post #179 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

It doesn't matter when, we're discussing the behavior, not the actual sales numbers or time period. The yawn disappears when you realize how egregiously they were representing their falsified numbers before those court documents revealed the reality of their market position… it set them up to be seen as outright liars, and nothing less.

 

The misrepresentation was more from articles that didn't explain what the numbers were about.  They left out a couple of critical factors:

 

  • The sales numbers in the trial were only US sales, and only of accused models. 
  • Samsung sells up to 25 times as many devices outside the USA.

 

So when some "reporters" seized on the smaller US number as "proof" that Samsung's worldwide sales for that quarter must be false, they were being ignorantly parochial.

 

 

No, business insider is far from a reliable source, as pretty much all "journals" and "tech sites". They are all based on rumours.

 

So, Samsung sells only 2x more devices outside the US, and you are wrong. Or you could always try to prove it and be seen as what you are, be it here or macrumours.

post #180 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

The misrepresentation was more from articles that didn't explain what the numbers were about.  They left out a couple of critical factors:

  • The sales numbers in the trial were only US sales, and only of accused models. 
  • Samsung sells up to 25 times as many devices outside the USA.

So when some "reporters" s
eized on the smaller 
US
 number as "proof" that Samsung's
worldwide sales
 for that quarter must be false, they were being ignorantly parochial.





Sammy can easily clear the confusion by releasing actual numbers.
post #181 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


Sammy can easily clear the confusion by releasing actual numbers.

They could but they already said they won't, two years ago about the time the Apple lawsuits against them started. FWIW I've yet to receive a reply to the related question I sent them almost a week ago, nor do I expect one (Anymore than Apple really answered the one I sent them for that matter).

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #182 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

So when some "reporters" seized on the smaller US number as "proof" that Samsung's worldwide sales for that quarter must be false, they were being ignorantly parochial.

 

 

You can do that, be selective about which part of the journalistic community to 'seize upon' to make a point. There are a few that may indeed support your point with their stupidity. I wasn't referring to any articles that mix US numbers with worldwide numbers to create a false narrative. (You may notice I'm sensitive to the shipping vs sales, domestic vs global differences.)

 

Although we're not really talking about "all devices, all over the world" here, yes, Samsung still sells millions of "button-filled feature phones" for $50 each in the far reaches of the world. The numbers being seized upon by ME were the relevant numbers (specific to the 'offending devices' in the relevant market). That said, a simple extrapolation gives us the sense that Samsung is prone to egregious misrepresentation, theft, keep going down that road...

 

Samsung pretended at huge, competitive US sales. They also pushed their cheaper look-alike products out to dozens of other countries in large numbers, but again, not nearly as large as they portrayed.

 

A peek into their real numbers came from the trial. To imagine that the same reality didn't apply generally would be willful ignorance.

post #183 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Actually I think Doug Englebart was the first to demo a mouse back in the 60s.

 

Yes, I was being partially facetious with my "apple invented the mouse" sentence… ;)

 

Englebart holds the patent on the two-wheel/cylinder X-Y roller behavior that enables positional input. A pretty ingenious idea. His ideas definitely gave birth to the mouse (he may even have given the mouse its name). Apple licensed that invention and incorporated it into a complete and useable end-product. 

 

When I think of "the first copier" I don't think of the team of guys in white smocks in a Xerox lab experimenting and writing up patents… I think of the first commercial machine put out by a company as a product. In the end, isn't that the one that matters to people like you and me?

 

Really the important point in my post was this, "Apple's genius isn't exclusively about "invention" anyway, so much as recognizing good ideas and inventing ways to productize/monetize them, incorporating them into new or existing products, and finding/extending ideas that make a difference to how we experience our lives."

 

peace.

post #184 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

Your point is pretty moot when the market space you're referring to is such a small fraction of the rest...

No it isn't, read Apples financial statements, they also say they count shipments
post #185 of 192

Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Sammy can easily clear the confusion by releasing actual numbers.

 

I finally got a few free minutes to do some checking.

 

Samsung did cite smartphone sales for 1Q 2011 in their earnings report, and they're in line with estimates afterwards.  Using those and the trial figures, we get:

 

 

Those numbers indicate that US sales as reported for the trial were a small minority of the world total.

 

So it seems believable that Samsung could've likewise sold 2 million tablets worldwide during one quarter, with only 260K of the infringing models in the USA.  (Especially since the iPad was really dominant in the USA at the time.)

 

Unfortunately, some people could not conceive of the idea of sales being so much larger outside the USA.  That, plus the mistaken transcription that first typed "slow" instead of "smooth", are what started the whole "shipped vs sales" thing that innocent forum newbies have used to sidetrack debates with, ever since.

post #186 of 192
2/3rds of your chart is estimates. Sammy stopped after 2Q 2011. Also, what is considered a Sammy "smartphone".

You can't compare the smart phone market to the tablet market. Tablets are 100% optional. Cell phones, whether we like it or not, are more ubiquitous.
post #187 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

2/3rds of your chart is estimates. Sammy stopped after 2Q 2011. Also, what is considered a Sammy "smartphone".

 

The estimates actually look really good.  As I noted, they're totally in line with known info.  If you can research anything better, please show us.

 

In any case, even if we took just the known 1Q 2011, US sales of the accused devices were less than 1/6th of world sales.

 

Quote:
You can't compare the smart phone market to the tablet market. Tablets are 100% optional. Cell phones, whether we like it or not, are more ubiquitous.

 

Agreed, especially in the US where cell phones are subsidized.

 

Moreover, in the US, the iPad rules.   That's why I said it was even MORE likely that Samsung tablet sales were greater outside the US.  

post #188 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


Agreed, especially in the US where cell phones are subsidized.

Moreover, in the US, the iPad rules.   That's why I said it was even MORE likely that Samsung tablet sales were greater outside the US.  

Somehow I doubt it. Do you know what the ratio is for flagship Sammy's vs cheap Sammy's? If overseas isn't going for the flagship phones (compared to the cheapies) I highly doubt they will go for a tablets that are similar in cost.
post #189 of 192

From the "Probably overkill" department: If your smartphone goes missing who ya gonna call? How about LoJack who will send a real, live person to retrieve it. Available only for the Galaxy S4 so far but coming soon for others.

 

http://blogs.absolute.com/lojack-for-laptops/2013/05/announcing-theft-protection-for-android-smartphones/

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #190 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

From the "Probably overkill" department: If your smartphone goes missing who ya gonna call? How about LoJack who will send a real, live person to retrieve it. Available only for the Galaxy S4 so far but coming soon for others.

http://blogs.absolute.com/lojack-for-laptops/2013/05/announcing-theft-protection-for-android-smartphones/

Too bad it ain't built in, aye?

So is this mob worldwide or what?
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #191 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


Too bad it ain't built in, aye?

So is this mob worldwide or what?

You didn't read the article? Apparently it is "built-in", installed at the firmware level, on the new S4's.

 

"Absolute Software, the makers of LoJack for Laptops, recently announced a global partnership with Samsung that will see our patented Absolute persistence technology embedded into the firmware of Samsung GALAXY mobile devices starting with the Samsung GALAXY S4.

Leveraging the same Absolute persistence technology used in LoJack for Laptops, once installed and activated it cannot be removed even if the device is restored to factory settings. "

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #192 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

So is this mob worldwide or what?

 

Their web page says the recovery team is made up of about 45 members who are ex-cops, military, FBI, etc... with a combined 1,000 years of experience in law enforcement.

 

I thought they only operated in the US, but the page says they've recovered "25,000 devices in over 95 countries".

 

I can't imagine they'd spend much money flying people around to get back a single phone, but who knows.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • 10M Samsung flagship phones in 28 days a 'record,' 5M iPhone 5 in 3 days 'disappointing'
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › 10M Samsung flagship phones in 28 days a 'record,' 5M iPhone 5 in 3 days 'disappointing'