or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple earned more than Samsung, LG, Nokia, Huawei, Lenovo & Motorola's mobile shipments combined
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple earned more than Samsung, LG, Nokia, Huawei, Lenovo & Motorola's mobile shipments combined - Page 2

post #41 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by QwertyJuan View Post
 

LOL, because the "vast majority" has NO idea what NAND costs.

 

The reason the 32GB and 64GB are expensive is because they are SUBSIDIZING the 16GB phones.  If all 3 phones were sold at the exact same gross margin the prices would look more like this:

 

16GB - $699

32GB - $749

64GB - $799

 

This happens ALL THE TIME.  Look at the car industry.  They make all their profits on upgrades and add on packages.  You can buy the base model with no upgrades.  Do you really think the leather interior and sun roof costs $4000?

 

Basically Apple is giving the 16GB buyers a break on pricing.  Its not that the 32G is expensive its that the 16GB is a great deal.  Bottom line is Apple can't price the entry level price about $649.  They tried with the first iPhone and it failed.  So the alternative is to charge less for the 16GB and make up the difference with the high memory models.

 

I've stated this numerous times on this site and every single time the person who says the 32/64 GB are expensive totally ignores this reason.

Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
post #42 of 216

My take away from this is Samsung S3 to S4 sales have been flat.

 

That shows me there is almost ZERO loyalty to the brand.  If 90% of Galaxy users upgraded they should have seen at least 25% growth.  But it seems an equal amount of users are dropping out as there are new ones adding.

Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
post #43 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

My take away from this is Samsung S3 to S4 sales have been flat.

That shows me there is almost ZERO loyalty to the brand.  If 90% of Galaxy users upgraded they should have seen at least 25% growth.  But it seems an equal amount of users are dropping out as there are new ones adding.

Samsung's announced sales numbers of the S4 are up about 35% over the comparable time-frame from last years S3 intro, 40 million S4 to 30 million S3. That's if you believe Samsung of course.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #44 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevliu1980 View Post

<1. BS snipped>

2. I find these statements utterly ridiculous - is there something wrong with wanting more storage and not wanting to get reamed paying for it? Apple, as a corporation, it doing the right thing to maximize profits in dragging out 16GB as their base and keeping their $100 increments, because they can due to their loyal users and robust ecosystem. However that shouldn't make us, their customers, happy that Apple can use this strength to stand pat while the industry is moving to 32GB base and/or cheaper increments. 

Should I, as a consumer, simply be happy that I'm forced to pay $100 more just to get a 32GB iPhone while that money simply gets returned to shareholders via the stock buyback and dividends? Why exactly should I be content with that?

Marketing and Pricing Strategy 101 for likeminded idiots:

Apple offers 16gb at a proverbial "-50% loss"... 64gb at a +50% profit... in the middle, the 32gb iPhone is where the majority of the sales are at +-0%. The actual sales numbers of each config only Apple knows... but i'd bet dollars to donuts that 16gb and 64gb are almost dead even. Meaning at the end, they received the selling and "true price" of the iPhones at 32gb prices for all devices.

Apple doesn't break out numbers for us or anyone else to know that as a fact... so don't even ask for a link.

Also, there is such a thing as component availability to take into account. Almost without a doubt, "if" Apple made the 64gb only $50.- instead of $100, almost immediately there would be a world-wide shortage of 64bit flash. Immediately as in within days!

And we KNOW what we would get to read in response:
a) Apple can't keep up with demand;
b) they're artificially constricting shipments to spur demand;
c) Tim Cook should be fired because he no longer knows how to control operations;
d) Apple is doomed because people are tired of waiting and going Droid or WinPhone.

You F***** idiots have absolutely NO CLUE whatsoever what goes into manufacturing and then delivering 9 million devices in a week... let alone a year!

And just because "S-@#$%^&" can do it, doesn't even mean were talking about the same components. It has been well noted that Google's Nexus devices are sold with B and C-grade Flash. Could it be that the A-Grade Flash actually costs more? Because it sure as h*** would cost Apple more to replace or repair all the iPhones that would fail with B/C grade. Look at the numbers!

The biggest part of this whole argument is that where I am in the world, Apple's winning the profit-race is viewed as "obscene, grotesque, and to vilify" rather than rejoice in.

I am not of that mindset... but that's what I have to deal with.

"S-#$%^&" the company, is a better fit with "socialized" the political persuasion and Apple is all that is wrong with capitalist pigs. I kid you not... and if you missed it the first time, NO... I DO NOT SHARE THIS VIEW!

S-#$%^&* = because it truly is a dirty word!

Sog35 beat me to the rant... and did it better... S@#$%^&*(!!!!)1hmm.gif
Edited by ThePixelDoc - 10/30/13 at 9:15am
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #45 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post


Marketing and Pricing Strategy 101 for likeminded idiots:

Apple offers 16gb at a proverbial "-50% loss"... 64gb at a +50% profit... in the middle, the 32gb iPhone is where the majority of the sales are at +-0%. The actual sales numbers of each config only Apple knows... but i'd bet dollars to donuts that 16gb and 64gb are almost dead even. Meaning at the end, they received the selling and "true price" of the iPhones at 32gb prices for all devices.

Apple doesn't break out numbers for us or anyone else to know that as a fact... so don't even ask for a link.

Also, there is such a thing as component availability to take into account. Almost without a doubt, "if" Apple made the 64gb only $50.- instead of $100, almost immediately there would be a world-wide shortage of 64bit flash. Immediately as in within days!

And we KNOW what we would get to read in response:
a) Apple can't keep up with demand;
b) they're artificially constricting shipments to spur demand;
c) Tim Cook should be fired because he no longer knows how to control operations;
d) Apple is doomed because people are tired of waiting and going Droid or WinPhone.

You F***** idiots have absolutely NO CLUE whatsoever what goes into manufacturing and then delivering 9 million devices in a week... let alone a year!

And just because "S-@#$%^&" can do it, doesn't even mean were talking about the same components. It has been well noted that Google's Nexus devices are sold with B and C-grade Flash. Could it be that the A-Grade Flash actually costs more? Because it sure as h*** would cost Apple more to replace or repair all the iPhones that would fail with B/C grade. Look at the numbers!

The biggest part of this whole argument is that where I am in the world, Apple's winning the profit-race is viewed as "obscene, grotesque, and to vilify" rather than rejoice in.

I am not of that mindset... but that's what I have to deal with.

"S-#$%^&" the company, is a better fit with "socialized" the political persuasion and Apple is all that is wrong with capitalist pigs. I kid you not... and if you missed it the first time, NO... I DO NOT SHARE THIS VIEW!

S-#$%^&* = because it truly is a dirty word!

Sog35 beat me to the rant... and did it better... S@#$%^&*(!!!!)1hmm.gif

Falling to insults is always a sign of a weak argument. However you are correct that this is excellent marketing execution from Apple in setting these tiers. Taking a tangent in implying Apple doesn't increase base storage to avoid a global NAND storage is hilarious. 

 

The BOM and retail prices are below:

16GB: $198.70 vs. $649

32GB: $208.10 vs. $749

64GB: $218.30 vs. $849

 

Again I'm not saying Apple doesn't have a right to do this - they certainly do. What I don't understand are the fellow consumers here trying to make an argument that I instead of being irritated by this, I should instead be happy.  Understanding does not have to equate to support. 

post #46 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

My take away from this is Samsung S3 to S4 sales have been flat.

 

That shows me there is almost ZERO loyalty to the brand.  If 90% of Galaxy users upgraded they should have seen at least 25% growth.  But it seems an equal amount of users are dropping out as there are new ones adding.

 

How is a 33% increase in sales considered "flat"??

 

Basic math - take 30 Million and multiply by .333...  you'll get 10 Million. Now add that to the original number(30 Million) and VOILA, you get 40 Million. I think ANYONE(regardless of what side of the fence you are on) would agree that an increase of 33% in sales is quite an achievement.

post #47 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevliu1980 View Post
 

Falling to insults is always a sign of a weak argument. However you are correct that this is excellent marketing execution from Apple in setting these tiers. Taking a tangent in implying Apple doesn't increase base storage to avoid a global NAND storage is hilarious. 

 

The BOM and retail prices are below:

16GB: $198.70 vs. $649

32GB: $208.10 vs. $749

64GB: $218.30 vs. $849

 

Again I'm not saying Apple doesn't have a right to do this - they certainly do. What I don't understand are the fellow consumers here trying to make an argument that I instead of being irritated by this, I should instead be happy.  Understanding does not have to equate to support. 

 

It's because people here are NOT consumers... they are "followers". Big difference.

post #48 of 216
Originally Posted by QwertyJuan View Post

Basic math - take 30 Million and multiply by .333...  you'll get 10 Million. Now add that to the original number(30 Million) and VOILA, you get 40 Million.

 

Why not just multiply by 1.3?

post #49 of 216
"It's also noteworthy that Samsung is doing exactly what analysts have recommended for Apple: rushing out Smart TVs, watches and other new devices while pushing down the price of its low end smartphone offerings for emerging markets. The result is that Samsung is making much less money building far more phones and watching its sales trend toward "mass market" low end sales while its high end fails to grow at all."


And, that my friends, is another proof, how dumb, stupid and bonehead Samsung is. They're just a copycat company which has no culture and certainly no sense of how to even run their own company.

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply
post #50 of 216
Samsung is doomed.™

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #51 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by QwertyJuan View Post

"The result is that Samsung is making much less money building far more phones and watching its sales trend toward "mass market" low end sales while its high end fails to grow at all. "

WRONG - The Note 3 and GS4(Samsung's "high end") are both selling at a faster rate than the Note 2 and GS3 that came before them.

Lastly, it's a good thing Samsung sells more than just phones eh?

http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/28/5039154/apple-q4-2013-earnings

http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/24/5026224/samsung-announces-9-56-billion-in-profit-for-q3-2013

Guess which of the two companies had two billion dollars MORE profit than the other?

 

You’re comparing Apple’s net profit to Samsung Electronics’s operational profit. The article points this out, but you ran with this anyway.

 

Apple’s net is still ~.5B larger than all of Samsung Electronics, but is much larger than Samsung Mobile, which is the part that does what Apple does, and not the part that build’s Apple’s chips and refrigerators, toasters and toilet seats. 

 

Also, provide a citation showing GS4 or other high end phones are selling at a faster rate.

 

The article cites SAMSUNG as saying THEY AREN’T in its audited financial statements. Also: apologize and slink away troll. 

post #52 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Samsung is doomed.™

 

I think that term has already been trademarked in Apple's portfolio.

post #53 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

And exactly what happened upon Apple's quarterly earnings? Apple's share price tanked because its earnings weren't good enough. Apple is going to have to add revenue for at least a few more companies if the share price is going to climb. Everyone on Wall Street still believes that Apple's best days are long past. Growing market share is the only criteria that is important on Wall Street and Apple continues to lose market share to every Android vendor on the planet.

Wall Street knows that Apple's YOY revenue has flat-lined. I'm not sure Apple can do anything about it as long as free Android exists. Apple needs to expand its business further than its mainly hardware business can take it. Samsung is going to continue to flood the mobile market with a hundred million smartphones and tablets until there's no place for Apple to get more revenue from. Samsung is out to break Apple's mobile hardware business and nothing else matters even if Samsung's profits suffer.

When it comes to Wall Street only market share means success and that's why Apple is seen as becoming a failed company as it continues to lose market share. I've also heard stories that Apple is in financial trouble because both Amazon and Google's share prices have been rising tremendously while Apple's share price remains mostly stagnant. Supposedly where there's smoke, there's fire. All those earnings and yet Apple shareholders continue to get beaten to a pulp. Nobody cares about Apple shareholders, especially Apple.

 

Wrong over and over. "Apple's share price tanked because its earnings weren't good enough" - no, welcome to the stock market. There are lots of reasons for selling up and down that are not apparently rational with reasons that are not immediately evident. AAPL basically sits unchanged before and after.

 

Apple’s revenue hasn’t reached above 2012 because Apple is aggressively stomping Android out of relevant existence. Google is focusing on TV and Glass. Apple is focusing on cars. We will see which strategy makes more sense: the one from a company that doesn’t know anything about hardware and can’t sell it in quantity even at a loss and backed by a wildly enthusiastic army of ideologues, or the company that has sold virtually everything it has imagined into existence over the past 30 years at high margins. 
 

post #54 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

News flash: I earned more than Nokia, Motorola and LG combined's mobile divisions combined.

 

First clever thing I’ve seen you write, thanks that made me smile.

post #55 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

 

The reason the 32GB and 64GB are expensive is because they are SUBSIDIZING the 16GB phones.  If all 3 phones were sold at the exact same gross margin the prices would look more like this:

 

16GB - $699

32GB - $749

64GB - $799

 

This happens ALL THE TIME.  Look at the car industry.  They make all their profits on upgrades and add on packages.  You can buy the base model with no upgrades.  Do you really think the leather interior and sun roof costs $4000?

 

Basically Apple is giving the 16GB buyers a break on pricing.  Its not that the 32G is expensive its that the 16GB is a great deal.  Bottom line is Apple can't price the entry level price about $649.  They tried with the first iPhone and it failed.  So the alternative is to charge less for the 16GB and make up the difference with the high memory models.

 

I've stated this numerous times on this site and every single time the person who says the 32/64 GB are expensive totally ignores this reason.

Finally someone who agrees with my viewpoint.

It isn't the higher GB models that r overpriced.

It is the lower GB ones that are underpriced.

post #56 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevliu1980 View Post

1. I find it a bit disingenuous to lump in sales and "profits" from bit players who aren't turning profits to Samsung's numbers and then compare it to Apple. The only numbers that matter are the two companies making any real money - Samsung to Apple. It would be akin to saying Samsung makes infinite times more profit than all the other Android manufacturers combined - what exactly is the point?

2. As a shareholder of Apple - I agree with their stock buyback and dividend changes over the last year to return more value to shareholders as they don't have any other outlets to spend such a large amount of cash.

As a consumer of Apple - it's a bit irksome that their $100 memory tiering increments is probably the biggest driver of this free cash (the margins of a 64GB iPhone are massive compared to the 16GB version). I'd rather they give some of that money back to me as a consumer (maybe $50 increments) and resultingly give less back via stock buyback and dividends.

3. Flatlining or even decreasing profit is an ongoing concern, even as Apple prints money. I still think Apple is undervalued in terms of real value (cash on hand, ongoing free cash flow), but I don't think they're undervalued in terms of profit growth. I believe it's now two quarters y/o/y that profit is flat.

 

Also lumped in the next two companies who are making money: Huawei and Lenovo. Past them volumes start to get pretty low.

post #57 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by johntan View Post
 

Actually both figures are for overall profits. But Samsung's figure is for OPERATING, before taxes, while Apple's figure is net of taxes.

 

The article makes the mistake of comparing Apple overall profits to smartphone division profits of other companies. That's intentionally misleading, which is not surprising given this is Appleinsider.

 

No it compares Apple to Samsung Mobile (which is the same business as Apple: phones, tablets, PCs, MP3 players etc). Similar with LG (which breaks out PC/phones from things like appliances) and Nokia Devices and Services (the part MSFT is going to buy, and excluding Nokia's only moderately profitable maps and network gear divisions, which could be included without making a difference). 

 

So no, it’s not misleading at all. Also, please keep comments civil. It’s not necessary to call somebody a "retard" for failing to understand an accounting term even if they are being a bit of a dick. 

post #58 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by QwertyJuan View Post
 

LMAO... nice how he BLASTS me for not reading, when he clearly didn't read EVERYTHING I wrote. Samsung does INDEED sell more "items" than Apple. Regardless... profits are profits.

 

Operating profits are not net profits, so no, you were wrong. And you clearly compared them because you said Samsung was 2B greater.

 

Apple reports both, but reporters only cite net profits (after taxes). Samsung and other companies only detail their operational profits, which aren’t the same thing and comparing them is stupid. 

post #59 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by QwertyJuan View Post
 

Yes it was... it had only sold 30 Million @ 6 months. And the Note 3 has sold 5 Million in a month, whereas it took two months for the Note 2.

Samsung said it planned to sell 100 M GS4s, sparking the whole "this is the end for iPhone" meme that some people still cling to. That is not going to happen.

 

As far as how many million at what month, keep in mind you are basing your numbers on rumored "shipments" or estimates, none of which are a) sales or b) accurate to a particular date. 

 

What is clear is that Samsung’s high end sales aren’t growing. It’s been warning about that all year, and the SAYS SO in its earnings. You can’t argue against that with any credibility whatsoever, particularly when your facts from from BSland.  

post #60 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by QwertyJuan View Post
 

LOL, because the "vast majority" has NO idea what NAND costs.

 

How much does Coke cost to produce, and why does a .5L bottle often cost more than a 2L bottle?

 

What about fabric, or digital content, or anything else where you are paying for design or IP and not raw components.

 

Don’t continue to be so opaquely stupid.

post #61 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Samsung's announced sales numbers of the S4 are up about 35% over the comparable time-frame from last years S3 intro, 40 million S4 to 30 million S3. That's if you believe Samsung of course.

 

No that’s not true. Samsung doesn’t announce sales numbers of anything really. It has occasionally announced shipments (or planned shipment goals), which provide no basis for comparing the pace of sales. 

 

But we don’t have to argue about sales rates. The GS4 has been out for long enough to have made a difference or not. It has not. And Samsung itself is stating to its investors that high end sales are "about the same," and that volume growth is coming solely from mass market cheap phones. 

 

Strategy Analytics twisted that to imply that Note 3 was part of the volume growth, but carefully avoided lying by not actually saying that.

post #62 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by QwertyJuan View Post
 

 

How is a 33% increase in sales considered "flat"??

 

Basic math - take 30 Million and multiply by .333...  you'll get 10 Million. Now add that to the original number(30 Million) and VOILA, you get 40 Million. I think ANYONE(regardless of what side of the fence you are on) would agree that an increase of 33% in sales is quite an achievement.

 

You are multiplying bullshit numbers. Don’t need to; the company with accountants working on the situation came out and told you that Samsung’s high end phones are selling flat, not 33% up. That is clearly not the same thing.

 

Apple, meanwhile, is making more money than Samsung AND saw high end sales growth of 26%, despite all the profitless Android devices being thrown into the market at or near cost. That is quite an achievement.

 

Actually...

 

That is quite an achievement

post #63 of 216
That's probably because apple uses their own products to run their business from a user's perspective. These others are using pcs and android products to run their business.
post #64 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post
 

......Also, provide a citation showing GS4 or other high end phones are selling at a faster rate.......

 

Your Google skills failing you??

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=samsung+galaxy+s4+sales+figures

 

Since you seem to be incapable of using Google, you will see HERE - http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/samsung-galaxy-s3-sells-30-million-samsung-plots-new-logo-50009697/ that Samsung had sold 30M S3's in 5.3 months(using 30 days per month)

 

As compared to the S4 that has sold 40M - http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2302755/samsung-disappointed-with-galaxy-s4-sales-despite-hitting-40-million-milestone in 6 months.

 

Again, using some BASIC math, (I used the ratio of 30M sales for 5.3 months, to 40M in X months) we can tell that the S3 would have taken SEVEN months to get to 40 million sales, whereas the link I posted CLEARLY shows 40M S4 sales in 5.9 months.

 

As far as the Note 3?? http://www.mobileburn.com/22163/news/samsung-galaxy-note-3-reaches-5-million-channel-sales-in-one-month - This article CLEARLY states that it reached the 5M milestone in "less than half of the amount of time".

 

For the record, I am NOT a Samsung fan.... I don't own ONE SINGLE Samsung device, on the contrary I DO own THREE Apple devices. I just can't STAND the bias and FUD being spread around the internet.

post #65 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

No that’s not true. Samsung doesn’t announce sales numbers of anything really. It has occasionally announced shipments (or planned shipment goals), which provide no basis for comparing the pace of sales. 

But we don’t have to argue about sales rates. The GS4 has been out for long enough to have made a difference or not. It has not. And Samsung itself is stating to its investors that high end sales are "about the same," and that volume growth is coming solely from mass market cheap phones. 

Strategy Analytics twisted that to imply that Note 3 was part of the volume growth, but carefully avoided lying by not actually saying that.

No idea what you're pretending to say Daniel. Is it the old and debunked (by Dediu among others) ship vs. sold argument? Note that in most cases shipped is sold according to generally accepted accounting principles. Of course you already know that.

Anyway Samsung periodically announces device sales numbers when they reach certain goals, not unlike Apple in that regard. A few you may have missed:
http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/03/samsung-korea-20-million-gs4-sales/
http://mashable.com/2013/10/24/samsung-sold-40-million-galaxy-s4/
http://www.ibtimes.com/samsung-galaxy-s4-hits-40-million-sales-mark-ceo-jk-shin-insists-device-not-trouble-amid-slowing
http://news.inews24.com/php/news_view.php?g_serial=756406&g_menu=020800
http://www.zdnet.com/samsung-sold-30-million-galaxy-s-iii-units-in-five-months-7000006927/
Edited by Gatorguy - 10/30/13 at 10:57am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #66 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by QwertyJuan View Post
 

 

Your Google skills failing you??

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=samsung+galaxy+s4+sales+figures

 

Since you seem to be incapable of using Google, you will see HERE - http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/samsung-galaxy-s3-sells-30-million-samsung-plots-new-logo-50009697/ that Samsung had sold 30M S3's in 5.3 months(using 30 days per month)

 

As compared to the S4 that has sold 40M - http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2302755/samsung-disappointed-with-galaxy-s4-sales-despite-hitting-40-million-milestone in 6 months.

 

Again, using some BASIC math, (I used the ratio of 30M sales for 5.3 months, to 40M in X months) we can tell that the S3 would have taken SEVEN months to get to 40 million sales, whereas the link I posted CLEARLY shows 40M S4 sales in 5.9 months.

 

As far as the Note 3?? http://www.mobileburn.com/22163/news/samsung-galaxy-note-3-reaches-5-million-channel-sales-in-one-month - This article CLEARLY states that it reached the 5M milestone in "less than half of the amount of time".

 

For the record, I am NOT a Samsung fan.... I don't own ONE SINGLE Samsung device, on the contrary I DO own THREE Apple devices. I just can't STAND the bias and FUD being spread around the internet.

 

It is really basic math, and no its not relevant how many Apple products you own.

 

Samsung has proven that it lies about shipment numbers. Your "sources" are bullshit notions about shipments reaching certain targets. Microsoft shipped millions of Xboxes to reach Bill Gates’ "targets," but they were not sales. 

 

Samsung’s total shipments of tablets were down last quarter despite the company bragging about shipping lots of its new Note 8 tablet. It also said GS4 sales were "solid" when they were clearly not, and danced around the idea that the Galaxy Tab was selling rapidly in 2010 when we now have definite proof that it was not. 

 

Stop citing PR garbage and lies and look at what Samsung is saying to investors in its audited accounting of its financial performance. 

 

It’s not even controversial. Samsung is not growing its high end sales, and has been warning all year about this. 

post #67 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post
 

 

You are multiplying bullshit numbers. Don’t need to; the company with accountants working on the situation came out and told you that Samsung’s high end phones are selling flat, not 33% up. That is clearly not the same thing.

 

Apple, meanwhile, is making more money than Samsung AND saw high end sales growth of 26%, despite all the profitless Android devices being thrown into the market at or near cost. That is quite an achievement.

 

Actually...

 

That is quite an achievement

 

An achievement that their profits actually DROPPED from their 4th quarter from the previous year?? Like an 8.2B to 7.5B drop. which for the mathematically challenged is only 92% as much as what was reported LAST year for the same period. - http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/28/5039154/apple-q4-2013-earnings - Yes... impressive!! Definately deserves a 48pt bolded font!

 

How about the fact that Samsung's profits are actually over 29% GREATER YOY for the same quarter??

 

The moral of the story? Research (remember Google is free and easily used by one and all) before you blather on the internet.

post #68 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


No idea what you're pretending to say Daniel. Is it the old and debunked (by Dediu among others) ship vs. sold argument? Note that in most cases shipped is sold according to generally accepted accounting principles. Of course you already know that.

Anyway Samsung periodically announces device sales numbers when they reach certain goals, not unlike Apple in that regard. A few you may have missed:
http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/03/samsung-korea-20-million-gs4-sales/
http://mashable.com/2013/10/24/samsung-sold-40-million-galaxy-s4/
http://www.ibtimes.com/samsung-galaxy-s4-hits-40-million-sales-mark-ceo-jk-shin-insists-device-not-trouble-amid-slowing
http://news.inews24.com/php/news_view.php?g_serial=756406&g_menu=020800
http://www.zdnet.com/samsung-sold-30-million-galaxy-s-iii-units-in-five-months-7000006927/

 

It’s very unlike Apple. Apple doesn’t ship large inventories to third parties. If you knew anything about Apple’s operations you’d know that. Look at how much inventory Apple is carrying compared to Samsung. 

 

Citing a bunch of garbage reporting by gadget blogs who repeat any numbers that anyone hands them will not convince me that Samsung is lying in its own reports. 

 

The fact that you prefer to believe garbage that does not fit the facts says everything. If Samsung were selling high end products, it would be making more money, just like HTC and Motorola briefly did when they moved from junk sales to higher end smartphones (before collapsing). 

post #69 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by QwertyJuan View Post
 

 

An achievement that their profits actually DROPPED from their 4th quarter from the previous year?? Like an 8.2B to 7.5B drop. which for the mathematically challenged is only 92% as much as what was reported LAST year for the same period. - http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/28/5039154/apple-q4-2013-earnings - Yes... impressive!! Definately deserves a 48pt bolded font!

 

How about the fact that Samsung's profits are actually over 29% GREATER YOY for the same quarter??

 

The moral of the story? Research (remember Google is free and easily used by one and all) before you blather on the internet.

 

The more you write, the more obvious it is that you are not a smart person. 

 

You are just barely wise enough to compare the size of two numbers you don’t fully grasp, and can draw equally juvenile conclusions.

 

If you think having YOY revenue growth is all that matters, why don’t you short Apple and invest in Samsung and see where that takes you?

post #70 of 216

Strategy Analytics actually minimizes Apple's phone sales growth the same way it minimizes iPad sales: by attempting to drown them in a bathtub of liquid shipments.

 

Just, wow. Well well written and well said.

post #71 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

It’s very unlike Apple. Apple doesn’t ship large inventories to third parties. If you knew anything about Apple’s operations you’d know that. Look at how much inventory Apple is carrying compared to Samsung. 

Since you would seemingly know all about Apple operations you know full well that Apple absolutely ships "large inventories to third parties". In fact those third parties are the source of the overwhelming majority of Apple device sales, upwards of 80% of all iPhones.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #72 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by bananaman View Post
 

Finally someone who agrees with my viewpoint.

It isn't the higher GB models that r overpriced.

It is the lower GB ones that are underpriced.

 

As a consumer they are all over priced in my opinion.

 

In Apple's  and other companies' opinion... well, they'd be stupid to price something lower when they know they'll do better financially if they price it higher.


Edited by island hermit - 10/30/13 at 11:29am
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #73 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Since you would seemingly know all about Apple operations you know full well that Apple absolutely ships "large inventories to third parties". In fact those third parties are the source of the overwhelming majority of Apple device sales, upwards of 80% of all iPhones.

 

I would explain why you are misguided and failing to grasp things, but seems like a waste of my time.

But ask yourself: why does the company that sells the most never report vast "shipments"? There’s a reason just beyond your current thought bubble. Flail towards that idea and see if you can figure it out on your own.

post #74 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post
 

 

The more you write, the more obvious it is that you are not a smart person. 

 

You are just barely wise enough to compare the size of two numbers you don’t fully grasp, and can draw equally juvenile conclusions.

 

If you think having YOY revenue growth is all that matters, why don’t you short Apple and invest in Samsung and see where that takes you?

 

Firstly, I will admit I was incorrect in the 7.5B and 9.5B reports that I mentioned in my first post... didn't realize one was OPERATING profit and one was NET profit. I was wrong, and for that I apologize.

 

However.....

 

2012 - http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/25/samsung-q3-earnings/ - 7.4B OPERATING PROFIT AND 5.97 NET PROFIT

 

2013 - http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/24/5026224/samsung-announces-9-56-billion-in-profit-for-q3-2013 - 9.56B OPERATING PROFIT AND 7.8B NET PROFIT

 

I even clicked on the articles... read the information and summed it up for you. Their profits are 130% what they were last year for the same quarter. You can argue all day, but you can't argue with math.

 

Lastly, Apple's NET profits are 92% what they were last year as referenced here - http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/28/5039154/apple-q4-2013-earnings

 

Anything else you'd like to discuss?? ;) 

post #75 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

I would explain why you are misguided and failing to grasp things, but seems like a waste of my time.


But ask yourself: why does the company that sells the most never report vast "shipments"? There’s a reason just beyond your current thought bubble. Flail towards that idea and see if you can figure it out on your own.

IMO the more likely reason you can't explain why I'm misguided is because I'm not. That 80% of iPhone sales attributable to third parties claim came from Tim Cook by the way, again as I'm sure you already were aware. At the end of the day Apple reports shipments as sales and Samsung reports shipments as sales. To it's credit Apple goes one step further and tries to estimate channel inventory at the end of each quarter so that folks like yourself can make a stab at guessing actual sell-thru. Samsung does not.

To be absolutely clear I'm no fan of Samsung. I believe they have issues with business ethics, are prone to "hey we did it first" with poorly performing or even non-existent "innovative product announcements" simply to upstage legitimate products from competitors and are a generally untrustworthy partner to both Apple and Google. With that said it still doesn't make some of your questioned statements true Daniel.
Edited by Gatorguy - 10/30/13 at 12:05pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #76 of 216

The bald Yahoo douche is at it again. And no I don't have a problem with the fact that he is bald, I just don't know his name. My problem with him is that he is an idiot with an agenda to bash Apple on a weekly basis. 

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/apple-stick-icahn-change-world-150926677.html

post #77 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post
 

 

I would explain why you are misguided and failing to grasp things, but seems like a waste of my time.

But ask yourself: why does the company that sells the most never report vast "shipments"? There’s a reason just beyond your current thought bubble. Flail towards that idea and see if you can figure it out on your own.

 

Yes, because month after month and year after year re-sellers buy copious amounts of Samsung devices, never sell them and lose money!! I can see the strategy!

post #78 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

And exactly what happened upon Apple's quarterly earnings? Apple's share price tanked because its earnings weren't good enough.

 

"Tanked" is a rather strong word for a price drop of a few percent.  IMO, that word needs to be used only for a drop of 90% or more.  Besides, we know the price of AAPL always falls a bit after an earnnigs report.  You just missed your opportunity to sell short and make a minor profit. 

post #79 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot View Post
 

 

"Tanked" is a rather strong word for a price drop of a few percent.  IMO, that word needs to be used only for a drop of 90% or more.  Besides, we know the price of AAPL always falls a bit after an earnnigs report.  You just missed your opportunity to sell short and make a minor profit. 

 

Exactly... now Blackberry?? Definitely "tanked".... ;)

post #80 of 216

Actually Samsung's Net profit was higher than Apple (7.8 billion vs 7.5 billion). What analysts see in the numbers is that Apple's net profit has been dropping (8.2 billion same period last year), Samsung has been rising (5.9 billion same period last year). Apple loyalists last year were saying well Samsung can sell more but Apple is still earning more, well this latest quarter Samsung earned slightly more ($300 million). See the trend, one is going up, the other is going down.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Apple earned more than Samsung, LG, Nokia, Huawei, Lenovo & Motorola's mobile shipments combined
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple earned more than Samsung, LG, Nokia, Huawei, Lenovo & Motorola's mobile shipments combined