So no one has explained the cell phone buying process to you? Obviously not - or you wouldn't be comparing the full unsubsidized price of various phones to the subsidized iPhone price.
And the only one in your Android list that is a contract (subsidized) price, like the two phones you list for Apple, is the Motorola Photon @$199. Soooo, what, exactly, is the point of your post?
It doesn't work like that. Stores don't buy phones from Samsung (or anyone else for that matter). Instead stores carry the phones and other electronic products as an inventory. Whatever is not sold is shipped back to the manufacturer. So, Samsung does care A LOT about what was actually sold from the stores.
Samsung's historical sell though for smart phones was only 50%, meaning that only ~10M phones were actually sold. The reason why Samsung announces the shipped numbers instead is to overinflate the actual performance and generate the excitement among developers. In a way if you keep telling everyone that your product is the best selling one, it might become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
That is brilliant dmitri thank you for that TRUTH!
I am now seriously considering ceasing to access AppleInsidious altogether for healthier pastures.
Talk about LYING DECEITFUL RUMOUR MONGERING - yes disguising as journalists THEY ARE NOT!
Giving a title to a story is the most serious business a site like this should have.
So they write that Samsung shipped this number and when you go read the text (not story) the first thing you realize is that they lied and Samsung did not ship the number after all, it's just a rumor?!?!
Apple Insider is taking part in the insidious campaign against Apple, trying to masquerade reality and induce a bad vibe towards Apple products.
Like those reports that the Apple earnings were a disappointment - Apple surpassed its guidance!!! - and the iPhone 4S is not that big an upgrade - because it bears an extremelly highly successful and excellent design everyone craves?! - and the list goes on.
The evil minded ones are trying to take advantage of an apparent vulnerability the absence of Steve Jobs may seem. By insinuation and manipulating, they expect Apple's popularity goes down. Maybe they're playing the stock shorting it yet again since they know it's going to blast past all previous records. Yeah, why not, if you live thinking you have an influence over people and you have some stock yourself it might prove difficult to turn away from temptation, isn't it so?
I'll probably turn to 9to5mac.com. You see, they are not this grey!
So no one has explained the cell phone buying process to you? Obviously not - or you wouldn't be comparing the full unsubsidized price of various phones to the subsidized iPhone price.
You cannot compare any unsubsidized price to Apple. Apples and oranges!
IPhones are the cheapest phones on the market. At any carrier. BOGO Android phones require a layout of hundreds, and you need to subscribe to two service plans: That is NOT free.
The iPhone is free. No cash needed. No waiting for a rebate. No nothing; just free. The iPhone is the absolute best choice for all the world's cheapskates.
The Samsung Galaxy S II was recently crowned 'best smartphone 2011' in the Netherlands (go figure what the dutchies were smoking).
I never saw it in real life, but just happened to stumble upon one this morning. My response: WTF, is this what all the hubbub is about? What a nintendo-cloning-piece-of-rubbish'! It's even worse than any HTC brick. Flimsy plastics that give when you ever so slightly squeeze the thing; way over the top brightness and contrast; no balance in weight; no craftsmanship; no... well nothing. Everything about this thing screams CHEAP, I'M CHEAP!
Even if it carries the 'smartphone' moniker, this is in no way competition for the iPhone (3GS, 4 or 4S). At best it's the first stop in the race to the bottom.
If this is the best Samesung can bring, I'm not worried. At all.
(Yes, I'm Dutch, and currently ever so slightly ashamed of it )
People care about specs, but I agree with you. Craftmanship (i.e. weight balance, quality materials) means alot to me. Of course without the beautiful, smooth and functional UI, it wouldn't matter. iPhone has got it all. Sure, spec-wise, it lacks certain things, but mostly they're not essential functionality for me. Everytime I take a look at my iPhone, I'm amazed at the overall quality of the phone... just beautiful.
So no one has explained the cell phone buying process to you? Obviously not - or you wouldn't be comparing the full unsubsidized price of various phones to the subsidized iPhone price.
BOGO Android phones require a layout of hundreds, and you need to subscribe to two service plans: That is NOT free.
The iPhone is free. No cash needed. No waiting for a rebate. No nothing; just free. The iPhone is the absolute best choice for all the world's cheapskates.
I'm always amazed at the weirdos that can switch their position within the same post. To be a troll I assume they know better but re purposive asking dumb so I can't imagine them writing such crap. This is just stupidity, plain and simple.
Benefit of the doubt: where can I free iPhone that has Doesn't require a "need to subscribe to two [year] service plans".
Samsung, for some curious reason, does not appear to report its handset sales in its financials.
If you know of an actual audited number that says "Sales" for Samsung, I would love to see it.
Samsung stated (after the first quarter results) they would mo longer break out detailed mobile revenue resuilts. The generally assumed reason had to do with Apple's legal efforts, but I don't know if Samsung themselves explained why mobile results wouldn't be detailed in the future. Have to do a bit of research to see if Samsung mentioned it.
You mean a company that has been in the cell phone market for over a decade and sells several dozen models in almost every country in the world potentially outsold another company that's been in the cell phone market for about four years, and basically only sells one model phone, and only in select countries. And they only outsold them by an estimated 3-4 million units ...
You cannot compare any unsubsidized price to Apple. Apples and oranges!
IPhones are the cheapest phones on the market. At any carrier. BOGO Android phones require a layout of hundreds, and you need to subscribe to two service plans: That is NOT free.
The iPhone is free. No cash needed. No waiting for a rebate. No nothing; just free. The iPhone is the absolute best choice for all the world's cheapskates.
Usually I can at least get your line of thinking, but I'm really struggling to figure out your reasoning on this thread. Does that post say what you meant it to? I can't even make enough sense of it to argue. Whatever - maybe I drank too much last night.
Samsung stated (after the first quarter results) they would mo longer break out detailed mobile revenue resuilts. The generally assumed reason had to do with Apple's legal efforts, but I don't know if Samsung themselves explained why mobile results wouldn't be detailed in the future. Have to do a bit of research to see if Samsung mentioned it.
That was 'an' assumption, and one that clearly puts a negative spin on the big bad Apple with Samsung being the little guy. The most likely scenario is Samsung has had to cut a lot of revenue and profit to move their product, which would hurt their numbers which would make their investors even more fearful of the future.
Based on your post you're saying Android is charging way too much and Apple is being overly generous yet still taking in over 50% of the world's handset profits.
No wonder Apple is pissed. Samsung is kicking their tail. Wow.
That's kind of a biased response.
Even if the numbers were accurate and it was a regular year, marginally beating the volume of a single product by shipping many multiple products is hardly "kicking their tail."
The main reason this happened also is that this year is not like any other year and there was a much larger than usual gap between iPhone models. If the best Samsung can do is to pull ahead by something less than ten percent in the only year when the competition couldn't ship, then they are in a lot of trouble.
If their products was actually better than the iPhone it would be winning every quarter. If it was just their latest products that were better then they should have smoked them by a lot more. No matter how you slice it, this "win" for Samsung is weak sauce indeed.
Samsung stated (after the first quarter results) they would mo longer break out detailed mobile revenue resuilts. The generally assumed reason had to do with Apple's legal efforts, but I don't know if Samsung themselves explained why mobile results wouldn't be detailed in the future. Have to do a bit of research to see if Samsung mentioned it.
I can tell you why: they were publicly embarrassed over their tablet shipments fudge (remember "smooth"?), and decided to stop providing that data. Then they realized it would be an even bigger PR disaster if they provided data on their mobile phone sales, but not the tablet sales.
So they decided to stop providing data on both.
Bottom line: I don't trust their numbers. When they go back to providing audited figures, I'll believe them.
Usually I can at least get your line of thinking, but I'm really struggling to figure out your reasoning on this thread. Does that post say what you meant it to? I can't even make enough sense of it to argue. Whatever - maybe I drank too much last night.
Maybe you're not the one doing too much drinking...
I can tell you why: they were publicly embarrassed over their tablet shipments fudge (remember "smooth"?), and decided to stop providing that data. Then they realized it would be an even bigger PR disaster if they provided data on their mobile phone sales, but not the tablet sales.
So they decided to stop providing data on both.
Bottom line: I don't trust their numbers. When they go back to providing audited figures, I'll believe them.
You may well be right. To release or not to release? That has to be a business decision just like everything else. They may have to worry about stock price, but low sales numbers would probably hurt their sales image and momentum.
That was 'an' assumption, and one that clearly puts a negative spin on the big bad Apple with Samsung being the little guy. The most likely scenario is Samsung has had to cut a lot of revenue and profit to move their product, which would hurt their numbers which would make their investors even more fearful of the future.
Samsung is such a complex conglomerate that it is difficult for outsiders to surmise their motives. We are smartphone-centric in our interests but, for all we know, it's the a completely unrelated business that's motivating changes in their reporting strategy.
Despite all their secrecy, kudos to Apple for being simple and explicit in their reports about the number of iPhones and iPads sold. Even during a *down* quarter, there is no change. Good on them.
Comments
So it seems:
Top 10 Best Selling Android Phones
September 5, 2011
1. HTC EVO 3D: US$533
2. HTC SENSATION 4G: US$644
3. Motorola Photon 4G: US$199
4. Samsung Galaxy SII: US$599
5. LG T-Mobile G2X: US$200
6. Motorola Droid X: US$210
7. Samsung Epic 4G: US$228
8. Sony Ericsson Xperia Play: US$604
9. HTC inspire 4G: US$608
10. LG Optimus 3D: US$485
http://blendblogger.com/2011/09/05/t...d-cell-phones/
Meanwhille, at store.apple.com:
iPhone 4S: "from $199"
iPhone 3G: "from $0"
So no one has explained the cell phone buying process to you? Obviously not - or you wouldn't be comparing the full unsubsidized price of various phones to the subsidized iPhone price.
So it seems:
Top 10 Best Selling Android Phones
September 5, 2011
1. HTC EVO 3D: US$533
2. HTC SENSATION 4G: US$644
3. Motorola Photon 4G: US$199
4. Samsung Galaxy SII: US$599
5. LG T-Mobile G2X: US$200
6. Motorola Droid X: US$210
7. Samsung Epic 4G: US$228
8. Sony Ericsson Xperia Play: US$604
9. HTC inspire 4G: US$608
10. LG Optimus 3D: US$485
http://blendblogger.com/2011/09/05/t...d-cell-phones/
Meanwhille, at store.apple.com:
iPhone 4S: "from $199"
iPhone 3G: "from $0"
And the only one in your Android list that is a contract (subsidized) price, like the two phones you list for Apple, is the Motorola Photon @$199. Soooo, what, exactly, is the point of your post?
It doesn't work like that. Stores don't buy phones from Samsung (or anyone else for that matter). Instead stores carry the phones and other electronic products as an inventory. Whatever is not sold is shipped back to the manufacturer. So, Samsung does care A LOT about what was actually sold from the stores.
Samsung's historical sell though for smart phones was only 50%, meaning that only ~10M phones were actually sold. The reason why Samsung announces the shipped numbers instead is to overinflate the actual performance and generate the excitement among developers. In a way if you keep telling everyone that your product is the best selling one, it might become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
That is brilliant dmitri thank you for that TRUTH!
I am now seriously considering ceasing to access AppleInsidious altogether for healthier pastures.
Talk about LYING DECEITFUL RUMOUR MONGERING - yes disguising as journalists THEY ARE NOT!
Giving a title to a story is the most serious business a site like this should have.
So they write that Samsung shipped this number and when you go read the text (not story) the first thing you realize is that they lied and Samsung did not ship the number after all, it's just a rumor?!?!
Apple Insider is taking part in the insidious campaign against Apple, trying to masquerade reality and induce a bad vibe towards Apple products.
Like those reports that the Apple earnings were a disappointment - Apple surpassed its guidance!!! - and the iPhone 4S is not that big an upgrade - because it bears an extremelly highly successful and excellent design everyone craves?! - and the list goes on.
The evil minded ones are trying to take advantage of an apparent vulnerability the absence of Steve Jobs may seem. By insinuation and manipulating, they expect Apple's popularity goes down. Maybe they're playing the stock shorting it yet again since they know it's going to blast past all previous records. Yeah, why not, if you live thinking you have an influence over people and you have some stock yourself it might prove difficult to turn away from temptation, isn't it so?
I'll probably turn to 9to5mac.com. You see, they are not this grey!
So no one has explained the cell phone buying process to you? Obviously not - or you wouldn't be comparing the full unsubsidized price of various phones to the subsidized iPhone price.
You cannot compare any unsubsidized price to Apple. Apples and oranges!
IPhones are the cheapest phones on the market. At any carrier. BOGO Android phones require a layout of hundreds, and you need to subscribe to two service plans: That is NOT free.
The iPhone is free. No cash needed. No waiting for a rebate. No nothing; just free. The iPhone is the absolute best choice for all the world's cheapskates.
The Samsung Galaxy S II was recently crowned 'best smartphone 2011' in the Netherlands (go figure what the dutchies were smoking).
I never saw it in real life, but just happened to stumble upon one this morning. My response: WTF, is this what all the hubbub is about? What a nintendo-cloning-piece-of-rubbish'! It's even worse than any HTC brick. Flimsy plastics that give when you ever so slightly squeeze the thing; way over the top brightness and contrast; no balance in weight; no craftsmanship; no... well nothing. Everything about this thing screams CHEAP, I'M CHEAP!
Even if it carries the 'smartphone' moniker, this is in no way competition for the iPhone (3GS, 4 or 4S). At best it's the first stop in the race to the bottom.
If this is the best Samesung can bring, I'm not worried. At all.
(Yes, I'm Dutch, and currently ever so slightly ashamed of it
People care about specs, but I agree with you. Craftmanship (i.e. weight balance, quality materials) means alot to me. Of course without the beautiful, smooth and functional UI, it wouldn't matter. iPhone has got it all. Sure, spec-wise, it lacks certain things, but mostly they're not essential functionality for me. Everytime I take a look at my iPhone, I'm amazed at the overall quality of the phone... just beautiful.
So no one has explained the cell phone buying process to you? Obviously not - or you wouldn't be comparing the full unsubsidized price of various phones to the subsidized iPhone price.
Do you honestly not have that guy on ignore?!
BOGO Android phones require a layout of hundreds, and you need to subscribe to two service plans: That is NOT free.
The iPhone is free. No cash needed. No waiting for a rebate. No nothing; just free. The iPhone is the absolute best choice for all the world's cheapskates.
I'm always amazed at the weirdos that can switch their position within the same post. To be a troll I assume they know better but re purposive asking dumb so I can't imagine them writing such crap. This is just stupidity, plain and simple.
Benefit of the doubt: where can I free iPhone that has Doesn't require a "need to subscribe to two [year] service plans".
Samsung, for some curious reason, does not appear to report its handset sales in its financials.
If you know of an actual audited number that says "Sales" for Samsung, I would love to see it.
Samsung stated (after the first quarter results) they would mo longer break out detailed mobile revenue resuilts. The generally assumed reason had to do with Apple's legal efforts, but I don't know if Samsung themselves explained why mobile results wouldn't be detailed in the future. Have to do a bit of research to see if Samsung mentioned it.
I'll probably turn to 9to5mac.com. You see, they are not this grey!
So it seems:
Top 10 Best Selling Android Phones
September 5, 2011
1. HTC EVO 3D: US$533
2. HTC SENSATION 4G: US$644
3. Motorola Photon 4G: US$199
4. Samsung Galaxy SII: US$599
5. LG T-Mobile G2X: US$200
6. Motorola Droid X: US$210
7. Samsung Epic 4G: US$228
8. Sony Ericsson Xperia Play: US$604
9. HTC inspire 4G: US$608
10. LG Optimus 3D: US$485
http://blendblogger.com/2011/09/05/t...d-cell-phones/
Meanwhille, at store.apple.com:
iPhone 4S: "from $199"
iPhone 3G: "from $0"
retard
What does that really tell you ...?
You cannot compare any unsubsidized price to Apple. Apples and oranges!
IPhones are the cheapest phones on the market. At any carrier. BOGO Android phones require a layout of hundreds, and you need to subscribe to two service plans: That is NOT free.
The iPhone is free. No cash needed. No waiting for a rebate. No nothing; just free. The iPhone is the absolute best choice for all the world's cheapskates.
Usually I can at least get your line of thinking, but I'm really struggling to figure out your reasoning on this thread. Does that post say what you meant it to? I can't even make enough sense of it to argue. Whatever - maybe I drank too much last night.
Samsung stated (after the first quarter results) they would mo longer break out detailed mobile revenue resuilts. The generally assumed reason had to do with Apple's legal efforts, but I don't know if Samsung themselves explained why mobile results wouldn't be detailed in the future. Have to do a bit of research to see if Samsung mentioned it.
That was 'an' assumption, and one that clearly puts a negative spin on the big bad Apple with Samsung being the little guy. The most likely scenario is Samsung has had to cut a lot of revenue and profit to move their product, which would hurt their numbers which would make their investors even more fearful of the future.
So it seems:
Top 10 Best Selling Android Phones
September 5, 2011
1. HTC EVO 3D: US$533
2. HTC SENSATION 4G: US$644
3. Motorola Photon 4G: US$199
4. Samsung Galaxy SII: US$599
5. LG T-Mobile G2X: US$200
6. Motorola Droid X: US$210
7. Samsung Epic 4G: US$228
8. Sony Ericsson Xperia Play: US$604
9. HTC inspire 4G: US$608
10. LG Optimus 3D: US$485
http://blendblogger.com/2011/09/05/t...d-cell-phones/
Meanwhille, at store.apple.com:
iPhone 4S: "from $199"
iPhone 3G: "from $0"
Based on your post you're saying Android is charging way too much and Apple is being overly generous yet still taking in over 50% of the world's handset profits.
No wonder Apple is pissed. Samsung is kicking their tail. Wow.
That's kind of a biased response.
Even if the numbers were accurate and it was a regular year, marginally beating the volume of a single product by shipping many multiple products is hardly "kicking their tail."
The main reason this happened also is that this year is not like any other year and there was a much larger than usual gap between iPhone models. If the best Samsung can do is to pull ahead by something less than ten percent in the only year when the competition couldn't ship, then they are in a lot of trouble.
If their products was actually better than the iPhone it would be winning every quarter. If it was just their latest products that were better then they should have smoked them by a lot more. No matter how you slice it, this "win" for Samsung is weak sauce indeed.
Samsung stated (after the first quarter results) they would mo longer break out detailed mobile revenue resuilts. The generally assumed reason had to do with Apple's legal efforts, but I don't know if Samsung themselves explained why mobile results wouldn't be detailed in the future. Have to do a bit of research to see if Samsung mentioned it.
I can tell you why: they were publicly embarrassed over their tablet shipments fudge (remember "smooth"?), and decided to stop providing that data. Then they realized it would be an even bigger PR disaster if they provided data on their mobile phone sales, but not the tablet sales.
So they decided to stop providing data on both.
Bottom line: I don't trust their numbers. When they go back to providing audited figures, I'll believe them.
Usually I can at least get your line of thinking, but I'm really struggling to figure out your reasoning on this thread. Does that post say what you meant it to? I can't even make enough sense of it to argue. Whatever - maybe I drank too much last night.
Maybe you're not the one doing too much drinking...
I can tell you why: they were publicly embarrassed over their tablet shipments fudge (remember "smooth"?), and decided to stop providing that data. Then they realized it would be an even bigger PR disaster if they provided data on their mobile phone sales, but not the tablet sales.
So they decided to stop providing data on both.
Bottom line: I don't trust their numbers. When they go back to providing audited figures, I'll believe them.
You may well be right. To release or not to release? That has to be a business decision just like everything else. They may have to worry about stock price, but low sales numbers would probably hurt their sales image and momentum.
Maybe you're not the one doing too much drinking...
Yeah - but as I said - I can usually follow his arguments even if I don't always agree with them. Just seems completely off today.
That was 'an' assumption, and one that clearly puts a negative spin on the big bad Apple with Samsung being the little guy. The most likely scenario is Samsung has had to cut a lot of revenue and profit to move their product, which would hurt their numbers which would make their investors even more fearful of the future.
Samsung is such a complex conglomerate that it is difficult for outsiders to surmise their motives. We are smartphone-centric in our interests but, for all we know, it's the a completely unrelated business that's motivating changes in their reporting strategy.
Despite all their secrecy, kudos to Apple for being simple and explicit in their reports about the number of iPhones and iPads sold. Even during a *down* quarter, there is no change. Good on them.