or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Only one third of Samsung's smartphone sales are in the class of Apple's iPhone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Only one third of Samsung's smartphone sales are in the class of Apple's iPhone - Page 3

post #81 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

Sure, do you have any data to back up your claims?  Considering Samsung doesn't publish their sales/shipment unit, like Dilger, you seem to be pulling numbers out of your a**.

he is Dilger
post #82 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesMac View Post
 

You expect to see some bias in an article published in Appleinsider, but this one needs to be called out.  The main finding of the article is actually quite interesting, but much of the backup is misleading.

 

For example, "Over the last fiscal year, Apple reported sales of 150 million iPhones. Unlike Samsung, Apple is not reporting an end to high end sales growth. Instead, Apple's high end is growing faster (26 percent) than than the overall phone industry (7 percent), according to CNET."    

 

You could be led to believe that Apple is growing much faster than the smartphone industry, because that's where Apple competes, but that's not the case.  The 7% quoted is for the entire mobile phone industry, which includes 'feature phones'.  The growth for smartphones from the quoted article is 45%.  Comparing 26% growth to 7% versus 45% could lead to different conclusions!

 

Another example, "That's a serious problem for Samsung, which makes about two thirds of its total profits from smartphone sales. Apple also relies very heavily upon iPhone sales, but it also has profitable Mac, iPad and iTunes, software and service related businesses, which generate ten times the profit of Samsung's struggling Chromebook netbook, Android tablet and Windows PC sales."

 

This is just plain stupid.  Samsung is a widely diversified company, selling everything from Washing Machines to TVs to Semiconductors.

Apple is much more focused and has a relatively limited set of products, many of which are interconnected, meaning a loss in one area will affect another.    

 

"the overall phone industry" is an actual industry.

"the smartphone industry" is an arbitrary definition of a type of products which excludes some simple phone-only devices and includes some simple phone-only devices. 

 

You seem to be trying to be confused here, because comparing Apple’s growth to only the phones running Android, rather than either all phones or all phones of a certain class gives you a meaningless number you seem to find comforting.

 

"Comparing 26% growth to 7% versus 45% could lead to different conclusions!" Yes, exactly, and you’re free to remain puzzled and ignorant if you want to ignore the facts laid out for you and cling to Strategy Analytics propaganda designed to flatter Samsung.

 

It won’t help you predict what’s about to happen, nor help you choose a phone, or really anything other than remain confused. Your choice.

 

"Samsung is a widely diversified company, selling everything from Washing Machines to TVs to Semiconductors." - yeah except all those other businesses are only narrowly profitable. Did you miss the part about +60% of all of Samsung Electronics profits coming from the sale of one product? Apple has multiple high profit businesses that are nearly as big as iPhone. Samsungs dishwashers and TVs arensimilarly profitable, but are capital expensive and serve as competitive distractions from where the real money is. That’s the point.

post #83 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post
 

"Samsung is a widely diversified company, selling everything from Washing Machines to TVs to Semiconductors." - yeah except all those other businesses are only narrowly profitable. Did you miss the part about +60% of all of Samsung Electronics profits coming from the sale of one product? Apple has multiple high profit businesses that are nearly as big as iPhone. Samsungs dishwashers and TVs arensimilarly profitable, but are capital expensive and serve as competitive distractions from where the real money is. That’s the point.

 

FALSE

post #84 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post
 

yeah except all those other businesses are only narrowly profitable. Did you miss the part about +60% of all of Samsung Electronics profits coming from the sale of one product? 

 

The article says two thirds of Samsung's profits come from smartphone sales. You're now saying that 60%+ of Samsung Electronics profits come from smartphones. 

 

Which one is it? Samsung (as a whole group) or Samsung Electronics? You've made two very different claims. 

post #85 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post
 

 

Or they simply jump ship to Intel baytrail z3770 and its successors which currently trump the A7 in most benchmarks.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review/5

 

That's the advantage Android has, they can jump ship to whatever hardware platforms offers best in class. (Note : I did not see any battery usage benchmarks on the baytrail yet, anyone ?)

Most? The page you linked had the Bay Trail only beat the A7 in 2 of the 4 tests. That would not be "most" by any stretch. And in the cases it did beat the A7 it did so only by 13% and 20% which is pretty small considering the Bay Trail SoC in those benchmarks has a 12% higher base clock speed, a burst clock speed that is 84% higher than the A7 max clock speed, double the L2 cache size, having double the cores and having a peak memory bandwidth that is nearly triple the A7. By specs alone that Bay Trail should have won every benchmark by far wider margins.

post #86 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

I agree Samsung is dominating the other OEMs but I'm pretty sure that they (HTC, Motorola, LG, and Sony) together sell more than 50% of Samsung's volume of high-end phones, which is how much they would need to sell to outsell the iPhone.

If they were, they would be making profit, right? Unless those companies are so incompetent they can't make money on high-end phones.
post #87 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post
 

 

The article says two thirds of Samsung's profits come from smartphone sales. You're now saying that 60%+ of Samsung Electronics profits come from smartphones. 

 

Which one is it? Samsung (as a whole group) or Samsung Electronics? You've made two very different claims. 

 

Why don’t you do the math and come back and report rather than just trolling. It’s public data.

post #88 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Ah gotcha. So battery life doesn't really matter to you in the first place since all smartphones need to be charged pretty much every night anyway.

 

Ah, gotcha. Let's twist the discussion away from the actual topic (that Samsung sells tons of low-end junk phones) and try to make it about something that's not relevant at all - as long as we can find a way to bash Apple somehow.

post #89 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post
 

You can recompile for the x86 ndk (or use emulation, but this has a performance hit), not a big deal, and comparable to offering 32 and 64 bit binaries on iOS. And ofcourse you have to use the NDK in the first place (most games do, most apps don't)

 

The fact that to develop for Android you have to choose between two different systems (NDK or Java/Dalvik) is a joke, and will really cause a problem when you have both ARM and x86 versions. Then add possible 64bit into the equation and suddenly Apple's platform looks positively brilliant.

post #90 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Update schedule here:
http://www.ibtimes.com/android-43-jelly-bean-update-leaked-release-schedule-us-samsung-galaxy-models-suggests-verizon

Surprised your Australian S4 didn't get the 4.3 update already as it's been rolled out to international devices for some time according to the link. I'll assume it must be a Telstra holdup, especially since they're saying the 4.3 update for the year older Galaxy S3 won't be offered until sometime between Nov. and Dec. If accurate most US S3 models will have received the update before you guys in Australia do.

EDIT: About that basic phone you linked: The latest Android version, KitKat, would work just fine on it despite the poor internals and ridiculously minimal memory. No thanks to Samsung.

 

Compared to my three year old iPhone 4 which had iOS 7 on day one.

 

My S4 is with Vodafone, it is now two Android releases behind at least it might get KitKat one day, unlike my Galaxy Nexus.

 

Android developers have to cater to the majority of Android phones, i.e. low specced phones running old versions of Android, which is why there is such a disparity between App Store and Play revenues, that and these low specced "smartphones" are being used just like the feature phones they replacing, as shown in countless usage studies.

 

That is Android "market share" in a nutshell, a useless metric, deliberately misused to mislead in a grand display of deception.

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 #91 of 116
Quote:
That's a sugar coated version of what Samsung reported in its latest quarterly earnings report, where it clearly stated: "total shipments [of smartphones were] up QoQ led by increased sales of mass-market models," but "high-end model shipments stayed at similar level QoQ."

In stark contrast, Apple's iPhone sales were up 26 percent over the year ago quarter, setting a new volume record for the September quarter.

It is grossly (intentionally?) unfair to contrast Samsung's sequential QoQ growth figure with Apple's YoY growth figure. Obviously, Apple's QoQ growth was also low (33.8m vs. 31.2m). What we do know about Samsung's annual growth rate is that Samsung recorded 24% YoY revenue growth and 19% YoY operating profit growth in their "Mobile" division, much higher than their QoQ growth figures.
post #92 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


If they were, they would be making profit, right? Unless those companies are so incompetent they can't make money on high-end phones.

 

No, my expectation of the combined sales of 4 companies doesn't speak at all to profitability.

post #93 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post
 

 

"the overall phone industry" is an actual industry.

"the smartphone industry" is an arbitrary definition of a type of products which excludes some simple phone-only devices and includes some simple phone-only devices. 

 

You seem to be trying to be confused here, because comparing Apple’s growth to only the phones running Android, rather than either all phones or all phones of a certain class gives you a meaningless number you seem to find comforting.

 

"Comparing 26% growth to 7% versus 45% could lead to different conclusions!" Yes, exactly, and you’re free to remain puzzled and ignorant if you want to ignore the facts laid out for you and cling to Strategy Analytics propaganda designed to flatter Samsung.

 

It won’t help you predict what’s about to happen, nor help you choose a phone, or really anything other than remain confused. Your choice.

 

"Samsung is a widely diversified company, selling everything from Washing Machines to TVs to Semiconductors." - yeah except all those other businesses are only narrowly profitable. Did you miss the part about +60% of all of Samsung Electronics profits coming from the sale of one product? Apple has multiple high profit businesses that are nearly as big as iPhone. Samsungs dishwashers and TVs arensimilarly profitable, but are capital expensive and serve as competitive distractions from where the real money is. That’s the point.

 

You have a very unorthodox view on this, but I won't dismiss it out of hand.  I will point out a few errors in your logic however.

 

All the major market research firms use the term Smart Phones and do break out numbers separately for that category versus Feature Phones.  It's a somewhat interesting view you have though that the categorization is arbitrary.  If I take your view, then Apple would have only 7.2% of the market according to IDC and would be growing faster than the industry.  Where you've definitely taken a wrong turn is your statement that "It won’t help you predict what’s about to happen".

 

This clearly is wrong.  The precise reason why the numbers are broken out in this manner is to help predict what is going to happen.  There are some very good numbers on Feature Phone versus Smart Phone broken down by country, which when matched with the various vendors selling Smart Phones into those countries help predict future sales.  It's much harder to do this if the numbers are all lumped together.   Would like to hear your views on how you think it should be split, albeit it's a bit late now to change the entire industry!

 

Your statement  "+60% of all of Samsung Electronics profits coming from the sale of one product?"  is wrong.  It's an entire segment, namely Samsung IM (IT & Mobile Communications).    I think you missed the point I was making, namely that Samsung Corp (the Chaebol) is a far more diversified company/group of companies than Apple is, and is therefore more resilient to future margin decreases in the Smart Phone sector. Indeed in the past quarter, they achieved record profits in part due to increased profitability in their Semiconductor business which helped offset weaker profits in other areas (and this is still within Samsung Electronics).  I do agree however, that the profitability of their non-electronics businesses are relatively small.

post #94 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

No, my expectation of the combined sales of 4 companies doesn't speak at all to profitability.

How can you tell how much they sold when they don't release numbers? What you can go on is the profit they make. Those companies aren't making profi so they aren't selling a lot of high end phones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesMac View Post

You have a very unorthodox view on this, but I won't dismiss it out of hand.  I will point out a few errors in your logic however.

All the major market research firms use the term Smart Phones and do break out numbers separately for that category versus Feature Phones.  It's a somewhat interesting view you have though that the categorization is arbitrary.  If I take your view, then Apple would have only 7.2% of the market according to IDC and would be growing faster than the industry.  Where you've definitely taken a wrong turn is your statement that "It won’t help you predict what’s about to happen".

This clearly is wrong.  The precise reason why the numbers are broken out in this manner is to help predict what is going to happen.  There are some very good numbers on Feature Phone versus Smart Phone broken down by country, which when matched with the various vendors selling Smart Phones into those countries help predict future sales.  It's much harder to do this if the numbers are all lumped together.   Would like to hear your views on how you think it should be split, albeit it's a bit late now to change the entire industry!

Your statement  "+60% of all of Samsung Electronics profits coming from the sale of one product?"  is wrong.  It's an entire segment, namely Samsung IM (IT & Mobile Communications).    I think you missed the point I was making, namely that Samsung Corp (the Chaebol) is a far more diversified company/group of companies than Apple is, and is therefore more resilient to future margin decreases in the Smart Phone sector. Indeed in the past quarter, they achieved record profits in part due to increased profitability in their Semiconductor business which helped offset weaker profits in other areas (and this is still within Samsung Electronics).  I do agree however, that the profitability of their non-electronics businesses are relatively small.

Where do you draw the line between smart phone and feature phone?
post #95 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


How can you tell how much they sold when they don't release numbers? What you can go on is the profit they make. Those companies aren't making profi so they aren't selling a lot of high end phones.

 

First off, you're confusing profits with revenues.  If I knew the revenues brought in by sales, then I could estimate the sales numbers.  Profitability takes into account expenses.  These companies could be making revenues hand over fist but report losses if their expenses are greater than sales.  When accounting rules come into play, profitability becomes less and less meaningful because companies are required to subtract phantom expenses like depreciation and capital losses from their revenues (there is no cash leaving a company when it accounts for depreciation or when an asset decreases in value).

 

That aside, I don't know how many phones these companies sold.  I just think that there's very little chance that the four next largest Android OEMs aren't combining to sell 50% of the high-end phones that Samsung sells.  Doesn't it seem unlikely to you that each of HTC, Motorola, LG, and Sony wouldn't on average sell 1/8 of what Samsung sells?  I think that sounds pretty unlikely.

post #96 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

Or they simply jump ship to Intel baytrail z3770 and its successors which currently trump the A7 in most benchmarks.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review/5

That's the advantage Android has, they can jump ship to whatever hardware platforms offers best in class. (Note : I did not see any battery usage benchmarks on the baytrail yet, anyone ?)

Why would Samsung jump ship to Intel when they are already making hundreds of millions of ARM chips for themselves (Qualcomm) and Apple (A series), and many other smartphone and tablet vendors.

Samsung owns a chip foundry, so why would they pay double or triple for Intel chips that only running a little faster, in artificial benchmarks?

Do you think HTC, LG, Sony want to pay double or more for Intel chips, when most users won't feel the difference? Most of these companies can barely make, if any money from their phones.

I understand your point that Android can run on Intel chips, but there is no financial incentive to do so in the current market.
Just bc something can be done, doesn't mean it will be done.

Cost/Benefit - there is none today, and not until Intel cuts pricing, which won't happen.

Samsung will build their own 64-bit ARM v8 chips rather than use Intel's chips.
post #97 of 116
It would be very simple if SAMSUNG would actually report sales figures for business units like a real corporation. Calling them current gen smartphones/smartphones or whatever is not a real corporate goverance. REPORT SALES FIGURES or have the analysts ask for numbers and ask why they can't or won't reveal them? Is it because their mouths are full of jumbo shrimp that they can't ask that question? EVERY quarter Apple reports the EXACT number of iphones, ipads, ipods and macs sold. Why does Samsung, Google, Amazon have only vague answers or rely on analysts to announce numbers (the same companies who said WIN PHONES will be #1 in 2014?) Numbers shoudl be counted as ZERO except reported by the companies themselves.
post #98 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

First off, you're confusing profits with revenues.  If I knew the revenues brought in by sales, then I could estimate the sales numbers.  Profitability takes into account expenses.  These companies could be making revenues hand over fist but report losses if their expenses are greater than sales.  When accounting rules come into play, profitability becomes less and less meaningful because companies are required to subtract phantom expenses like depreciation and capital losses from their revenues (there is no cash leaving a company when it accounts for depreciation or when an asset decreases in value).

That aside, I don't know how many phones these companies sold.  I just think that there's very little chance that the four next largest Android OEMs aren't combining to sell 50% of the high-end phones that Samsung sells.  Doesn't it seem unlikely to you that each of HTC, Motorola, LG, and Sony wouldn't on average sell 1/8 of what Samsung sells?  I think that sounds pretty unlikely.

I'm not confusing revenue with profit. High end phones should generate more profit. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Does it also seem unlikely that Sammy and Apple combine for almost all the profit in mobile? But they do.

I'm sure the other vendors are selling some high end phones, but not at the level Apple and Sammy are.
post #99 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

I agree Samsung is dominating the other OEMs but I'm pretty sure that they (HTC, Motorola, LG, and Sony) together sell more than 50% of Samsung's volume of high-end phones, which is how much they would need to sell to outsell the iPhone.

I doubt that but regardless, which of those four companies will still be selling phones in 5 years? If had to pick two, it would be Moto backed by Google, and LG backed by its conglomerate industry parent.

I wonder if Samsung makes more from Android than Google (across all OEMs)?
post #100 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


I'm not confusing revenue with profit. High end phones should generate more profit. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Does it also seem unlikely that Sammy and Apple combine for almost all the profit in mobile? But they do.

I'm sure the other vendors are selling some high end phones, but not at the level Apple and Sammy are.

 

You're definitely confusing profits with revenues for the exact reasons I wrote before.  Revenues are perfectly correlated with sales.  Profits are only somewhat correlated with sales.  If you had said that high-end phones generate higher gross income, no ifs, ands, or buts about it, then you'd be right.  After you get your gross income, though, you subtract expenses to get profits.  When you see the charts showing company profits, those charts aren't showing you profit margins per device, gross margins on operations, or sales revenues.  They show you profit, which is revenues minus expenses by definition.

 

If profitability was perfectly correlated with sales, then HTC must have been buying phones from consumers.  How else could they have a loss by your definition?

post #101 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower View Post


I doubt that but regardless, which of those four companies will still be selling phones in 5 years? If had to pick two, it would be Moto backed by Google, and LG backed by its conglomerate industry parent.

I wonder if Samsung makes more from Android than Google (across all OEMs)?

 

I would pick the same two you chose.  Motorola isn't going anywhere post-acquisition, and LG is just enormous.  I'm not sure how much of a barrier there is between LG's divisions, but it's entirely possible for them to sustain losses in their phone division until eternity as long as they continue being profitable in other divisions.

post #102 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbono13 View Post

It is grossly (intentionally?) unfair to contrast Samsung's sequential QoQ growth figure with Apple's YoY growth figure. Obviously, Apple's QoQ growth was also low (33.8m vs. 31.2m). What we do know about Samsung's annual growth rate is that Samsung recorded 24% YoY revenue growth and 19% YoY operating profit growth in their "Mobile" division, much higher than their QoQ growth figures.

The wording that you quote was a little confusing to me too. I'll let the author defend/correct that.

I think that was emphasizing that Samsung's new high end devices stayed the sales/shipped level 2 quarters in a row, which isn't a bad thing.

The interesting part is that Apple iPhone sales grew 26% YoY, in the quarter right before a refresh? I'll have to check the dates.

The biggest problem writing stories like these is that Apple is more transparent, with stricter accounting disclosures via US laws, than most of the other Android OEMs with the exception of Moto, maybe Sony with Japanese disclosure laws?

Anyway, glad you noticed this discrepancy.
post #103 of 116
"Do you really think two years old smartphone iPhone (4/4S) is still high-end ? Samsung high-ends smartphones price-tag (Galaxy S4 / Note 3) are comparable with Apple iPhone's price-tag 600$ ."

If you look at the graphics showing "Galaxy S & Note series 100,000,000 in 2013"

That includes all the S series phones still in production and being sold around the world. Listed on Samsung's website are not only the S4 and the S3 (and the Mini variations of the two) but also the Galaxy S and it's different variations (apparently these are still in production) as well as the SII HD, S II LTE, S Infuse 4G, S Vibrant and Captivate.

Check the Samsung website of your respective region to find all the "S" phones listed as still being in production and/or available for purchase. Here's the UK website:

http://m.samsung.com/uk/consumer/mobile-devices/smartphones

The Note would include everything from the recently released Note 3 but also Note 2 and the first iteration of Galaxy Note from 2011 (still being sold today). I'm pretty sure it also includes the Note 8 and Mega (which are really a tablets).

Chronologically, the iPhone 4 was released around the same time as the first Galaxy S: mid-2010. The iPhone 4S sits between the release of the SII and the S3 (May 2011 and May 2012). While the 512MB iPhone 4 is still usable today with the latest iOS (7), the S stops at Android 2.3 and never made it to 4.0.
post #104 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post
 

 

Why don’t you do the math and come back and report rather than just trolling. It’s public data.

 

OK, so it seems like it's only Samsung Electronics and your original article is wrong. Are you going to correct it, Corrections?

 

I love how you call me a troll for pointing out factual errors in your posts. Have you considered a career in politics?  

post #105 of 116

first of all they definitely "out ship" but maybe "out sell". Samsung & Co never report "sell number", they only report "shipped" number. Still most likely in total, Android out sell iPhone. So what? Android market is full of very crappy phones. They are dirt chip (actually in many cases free) for the reason. Most of them are not pinnacles of engineering (not even pinnacles of quality execution).  

 

I do realize that this is just "anecdotal evidence" - but I have witness quite often Android users opening battery door and removing the battery (I assume to force cold restart). Somehow it does not strike me as a sign of quality handset. 

post #106 of 116

This message is for Mr. Daniel Eran Dilger: You are the MAN!

 

Thank you and AI team for all your hard work and super informative articles.

....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 #107 of 116

Samsung is the leading vendor of smart phones.  Good for them.  Their problem is that they have stopped growing meaningfully their sales of the profitable high end phones.

 

Someone is taking away their growth right now, and that is Apple.

 

Apple is growing amazingly its sales of all iOS devices.

 

Whom is Apple negatively impacting by doing this?  The established market leader, Samsung.

 

Sometimes, when you're on top in terms of sales, the only place you have to go, is down. 

post #108 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

If they were, they would be making profit, right? Unless those companies are so incompetent they can't make money on high-end phones.

When you look at Samsung remember their marketing budget. 10-12 billion, much more than the next four combined.

Be honest, Samsung is buying sales, not just through ads but from spiffs and rebates.

If Walmart sells an iPad for $479, they (Walmart) are selling them at cost. Hoping to sell something else in the store.

When Samsung drops the S4 to $99 from $199 at Walmart, mostly Samsung is eating the cost. 10-12 billion marketing.

That's how Samsung is dominating android. That's why HTC may go out of business in a few years.

If you love android, you shouldn't be happy that Samsung is killing off the other major android makers!!!!
post #109 of 116
Originally Posted by Spacepower View Post
Be honest, Samsung is buying sales, not just through ads but from spiffs and rebates.

 

Samsung is also buying “sales”. As well as reviews, “reviews”, and ratings.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #110 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Quote:
Be honest, Samsung is buying sales, not just through ads but from spiffs and rebates.

Samsung is also buying “sales”. As well as reviews, “reviews”, and ratings.

I buy that.
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #111 of 116
What's the point of this article? Who cares.

Samsung isn't really Apple's direct competitor. People aren't going into a shop and saying do I want a Samsung or an Apple phone.

It's more about iOS vs Android.

It's a shame that Samsung's ethics aren't as high as their technical abilities but that's just the way it is. I wish Apple focused sites wouldn't discuss Samsung so much unless it's directly related to Apple.

The article about Samsung's troubles with their Exynos chip design was interesting but these articles that basically state, "Samsung sucks vs Apple" are tiring.
post #112 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by rats View Post

Samsung isn't really Apple's direct competitor. People aren't going into a shop and saying do I want a Samsung or an Apple phone.

It's a shame that Samsung's ethics aren't as high as their technical abilities but that's just the way it is. I wish Apple focused sites wouldn't discuss Samsung so much unless it's directly related to Apple.

The article about Samsung's troubles with their Exynos chip design was interesting but these articles that basically state, "Samsung sucks vs Apple" are tiring.

 

Yes they are.

 

Anything that Samsung does is met with a false positivity in comments on almost any website on earth, where there are no problems with anything they do apart from comments from people often branded as "Apple fanboys", "iSheep" or whatever term is fashionable that week.

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 #113 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenTodd View Post

samsung is really shit, i used one, it doesnot work many times

Nicht immer, aber immer öfter
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #114 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenTodd View Post

samsung is really shit, i used one, it doesnot work many times

You used a samsung?





a samsung what?
post #115 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukefrench View Post

If the definition of a smartphone is to be able to run apps well, yes the 4s is still high end smartphone. Heck, even the lowly old 3GS I kept (i  use a lot more the ipad mini now, keep the phone for calls and maps mostly) run better than some of the lowend samsungs I see around.
The galaxy S line is not so bad ( but i really dislike the screen both for colors and lack of responsiveness, and the flimsy plastic shell) but the low end of the bucket is really junk, to the point that a nokia  dumbphone is actually better value.
Do you actually believe the BS you type? The S2 is junk? Ha, its plastic and I loved it for as long as I used it. I got a Note 3, my gf still doesn't wanna upgrade from the S2, even after more than 2 years. Listen to this guy.
post #116 of 116

wow!! the droid dorks are really off their rocker today. 

poor fools...

android sucks, but not as much as the people who come here to defend it.

New for MS dorks - Microsoft sucks just as much as the losers that come to AI to defend it

Reply

android sucks, but not as much as the people who come here to defend it.

New for MS dorks - Microsoft sucks just as much as the losers that come to AI to defend it

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Only one third of Samsung's smartphone sales are in the class of Apple's iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Only one third of Samsung's smartphone sales are in the class of Apple's iPhone