Did they get their money back when they returned them? Then they were shipped. It really is simple.
You said that battery life will improve as long as the screen and the battery grow wider together. He suggested that using a wider display (obviously in a wider body) would penalize battery life. Perhaps he was implying that a larger device would come with the same battery capacity as the current iphone.
If you make the battery wider but not thicker, you increase the battery size in only two dimensions as well.
First off, everyone is using the wrong terms. Just plain "sold" and "shipped" are almost always the same thing in articles... because both refer mostly to retailers.
What some of you really mean to talk about, are "sell-through" (sold to end users) versus "sell-in" (sold to retailers). At the least, please specify "end user sales" to be clear, if that's what you're referring to.
See above. Sold or shipped to the retailer = usually same thing. However, they have not been sold through to an end user.
Interestingly, both Apple and Samsung count a shipment as a sale. (Apple at the point of shipment, Samsung when it arrives.) That's the revenue and numbers that they brag about. Both say they account for returns separately in their financials.
On the other hand, RIM's public filing says that they don't count a device that's been shipped, unless they are also pretty positive that it won't be returned and that they will see revenue for it... plus they even reduce the revenue by any promotions. So they seem the most forthright of all in their reporting.
I see lots of phones like the Nokia Lumia (Windows) phones in the list of 3768 phones smaller than 4.2", What point are you trying to make with that link that is relevant to Samsung moving to smaller screens? How many new (not rebranded/recolored) Samsung Android phones announced in the last six months have screens smaller than 4.2" inches? That should tell us more about their direction with screen size.
What was your search criteria? Was it for all smartphones ever made?
I got, for all smartphones... currently available... ~300 over 4.2", versus ~750 for smaller. That means 40% were the larger screen.
For all Android smartphones... currently available, it was 280 to 580. That's 50% larger screen. If you chose 4" instead, it jumps to 75% being that size or larger.
If that was true, Samsung would've made an equivalent of the S4 with a smaller screen.
But they didn't. Samsung is simply doing what they've done every year since early 2011... sell a phone with lower specs and price that they call the "Mini".
That's why this article isn't news at all. The author either didn't know about this history, or ignored it.
*grin* Good eye. Yes, that is funny that they said "more compact and practical". Gotta love marketing.
Just like Apple claiming that no one would buy larger phones, or smaller tablets. And that the 3.5" screen was ideal.
On the contrary, the whole point is that posters often claim that the only reason some people get the larger screen, is because there's no equivalent device in a smaller format. Heck, they could be right.
The first Galaxy Mini was announced January 2011.