Estimate claims Apple bested Samsung by 3M to remain top smartphone vendor
Two conflicting estimates paint very different pictures of Samsung's smartphone sales in the March quarter, as the company did not publicly disclose exactly how many smartphones it shipped.
Directly contradicting an earlier report that estimated Samsung shipped 44.5 million smartphones in the first quarter of calendar 2012, IHS iSuppli reported on Friday that Samsung shipped just 32 million smartphones during the quarter. The massive 12.5 million unit difference between the two estimates from Strategy Analytics and iSuppli puts Samsung either well above or below Apple for the quarter.
Unlike Samsung, Apple publicly discloses its quarterly iPhone sales. The company revealed on Tuesday that it sold 35.1 million iPhones last quarter, representing 88 percent unit growth over the same three-month span in 2011.
Apple initially took the smartphone crown from Samsung in the holiday quarter of 2011, in which the company was bolstered by the launch of the iPhone 4S. Whether Apple retained the lead in smartphone shipments in the March quarter, however, remains uncertain.
On Thursday, Samsung confirmed its earlier estimates for the March quarter, and posted profits of 5.85 trillion won, or $5.2 billion. The bulk of the company's profits came from its mobile division.
One point that both Strategy Analytics and iSuppli can agree on is Samsung passed Nokia to become the top overall mobile phone vendor in the March quarter. Strategy Analytics' higher estimate pegs Samsung's mobile phone shipments as 93.5 million, while iSuppli has the company slightly lower, with shipments of 92 million.
"Samsung?s surpassing of Nokia for cellphone market leadership represents not only a changing of the guard among handset brands but also a fundamental shift in the structure of the wireless market," said Ian Fogg, senior principal analyst, mobile for IHS.
"Cellphone market growth is now being generated exclusively by the smartphone segment, and not by the feature phones, entry-level cellphones and ultra-low-cost handsets (ULCH) that had fueled the industry?s expansion over the previous decade. Samsung has successfully ridden the wave of smartphone adoption to attain market leadership. Meanwhile, Nokia is in the midst of transitioning its smartphone strategy, resulting in declining shipments for the company."
Directly contradicting an earlier report that estimated Samsung shipped 44.5 million smartphones in the first quarter of calendar 2012, IHS iSuppli reported on Friday that Samsung shipped just 32 million smartphones during the quarter. The massive 12.5 million unit difference between the two estimates from Strategy Analytics and iSuppli puts Samsung either well above or below Apple for the quarter.
Unlike Samsung, Apple publicly discloses its quarterly iPhone sales. The company revealed on Tuesday that it sold 35.1 million iPhones last quarter, representing 88 percent unit growth over the same three-month span in 2011.
Apple initially took the smartphone crown from Samsung in the holiday quarter of 2011, in which the company was bolstered by the launch of the iPhone 4S. Whether Apple retained the lead in smartphone shipments in the March quarter, however, remains uncertain.
On Thursday, Samsung confirmed its earlier estimates for the March quarter, and posted profits of 5.85 trillion won, or $5.2 billion. The bulk of the company's profits came from its mobile division.
One point that both Strategy Analytics and iSuppli can agree on is Samsung passed Nokia to become the top overall mobile phone vendor in the March quarter. Strategy Analytics' higher estimate pegs Samsung's mobile phone shipments as 93.5 million, while iSuppli has the company slightly lower, with shipments of 92 million.
"Samsung?s surpassing of Nokia for cellphone market leadership represents not only a changing of the guard among handset brands but also a fundamental shift in the structure of the wireless market," said Ian Fogg, senior principal analyst, mobile for IHS.
"Cellphone market growth is now being generated exclusively by the smartphone segment, and not by the feature phones, entry-level cellphones and ultra-low-cost handsets (ULCH) that had fueled the industry?s expansion over the previous decade. Samsung has successfully ridden the wave of smartphone adoption to attain market leadership. Meanwhile, Nokia is in the midst of transitioning its smartphone strategy, resulting in declining shipments for the company."
Comments
IHS iSuppli's estimate seems far more reasonable than Strategy Analytics. The idea that Apple dropped iPhone sales 5% QoQ while Samsung increased shipped smartphones by nearly 33% was extrememly questionable given that both companies just posted record sales in a holiday quarter and Samsung didn't introduce any notable, new smartphones.
it's worth remembering that shipped does NOT equal sold. Shipped means that it left a warehouse and went to a store. It could be on the shelf still. Heck it could be in an intermediate warehouse still.
Heck even when Samsung says sold it might not mean to a customer. they love to talk about what they sold but they mean is the 'wholesale' to their resellers. So again it could be on a shelf still.
When Apple talks sold they generally mean to a customer and activated. Rarely are channel sales with no end user included.
then there's the issue of sold and then returned in 3 days cause it sucked. No one ever adjusts for that. So for all we know Samsung sold 3 million to end users who then returned them and got something else, including perhaps an iPhone .
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
it's worth remembering that shipped does NOT equal sold. Shipped means that it left a warehouse and went to a store. It could be on the shelf still. Heck it could be in an intermediate warehouse still.
Heck even when Samsung says sold it might not mean to a customer. they love to talk about what they sold but they mean is the 'wholesale' to their resellers. So again it could be on a shelf still.
When Apple talks sold they generally mean to a customer and activated. Rarely are channel sales with no end user included.
then there's the issue of sold and then returned in 3 days cause it sucked. No one ever adjusts for that. So for all we know Samsung sold 3 million to end users who then returned them and got something else, including perhaps an iPhone .
Interesting thought about returns at Samsung. There are anecdotal reports of return rates as high as 40% for some Android-based smartphones. Meanwhile, ITG Investment Research reports that Samsung Galaxy Tab return rates were 16%.
With all the reports of battery issues, GPS inaccuracy, heating issues, Wi-Fi issues and yellowish screen problems it seems likely that Samsung's top selling smartphone may have a relatively high return rate.
So they are stuck in a warehouse or customers throw them back after a few days but Samsung have a record quarter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
it's worth remembering that shipped does NOT equal sold. Shipped means that it left a warehouse and went to a store. It could be on the shelf still. Heck it could be in an intermediate warehouse still.
Heck even when Samsung says sold it might not mean to a customer. they love to talk about what they sold but they mean is the 'wholesale' to their resellers. So again it could be on a shelf still.
When Apple talks sold they generally mean to a customer and activated. Rarely are channel sales with no end user included.
then there's the issue of sold and then returned in 3 days cause it sucked. No one ever adjusts for that. So for all we know Samsung sold 3 million to end users who then returned them and got something else, including perhaps an iPhone .
then there's the issue of sold and then returned in 3 days cause it sucked. No one ever adjusts for that. So for all we know Apple sold 3 million to end users who then returned them and got something else, including perhaps a Galaxy .
See what I did there?
On another note.........does it matter? Its not like Samsung can rape the customer for a ridiculously high margin like Apple does and force the carriers into crazy high subsidies which they can't get out of for at least another 24 months. So in the end Apple will always make the most profit, even if they only sell half of what Samsung does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emcomments
So they are stuck in a warehouse or customers throw them back after a few days but Samsung have a record quarter?
If its true that these are just shipments, at some point Samsung will have to take a HUGE write down for returned phones from carrieirs. You know, those MILLIONS of galaxy phones in the back of every verizon store. Don;'t you hate it when you go to a verizon store and you cant even move cause there are boxes and boxes of unsold samsung phones in all over the place?
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
then there's the issue of sold and then returned in 3 days cause it sucked. No one ever adjusts for that. So for all we know Samsung sold 3 million to end users who then returned them and got something else, including perhaps an iPhone .
If so, do you question the reported growth rate of the smartphone segment? If a significant number are returned, but not subtracted in the stats, then the stats could be inflated to twice or more the actual penetration rate.
How do you respond? Do you think that is true, or what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3
Its not like Samsung can rape the customer for a ridiculously high margin like Apple does and force the carriers into crazy high subsidies which they can't get out of for at least another 24 months.
Yeah, you certainly don't see Samsung phones selling for $199 and users being forced to take on a two year contract to own… one…
OH FREAKING WAIT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3
derp... derp... derp...
What does the iPhone look like?
What?
What country you from?
Wh-what?
What ain’t no country I ever heard of! They speak English in What?
What?
English, motherf**ker! Do you speak it?!
Yes?
Then you know what I’m saying?!
Describe what the iPhone looks like!
What?
Say “what” again! Say “what” again! I dare you, I double dare you motherf**ker! Say “what” one more God d**ned time!
It’s black or white!
Go on!
It’s rectangular.
Does it look like a Samsung?
What? Oww!
Does it look like a Samsung?
No!
Then why you trying to f**k it like a Samsung?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Two conflicting estimates paint very different pictures of Samsung's smartphone sales in the March quarter, as the company did not publicly disclose exactly how many smartphones it shipped.
Directly contradicting an earlier report that estimated Samsung shipped 44.5 million smartphones in the first quarter of calendar 2012, IHS iSuppli reported on Friday that Samsung shipped just 32 million smartphones during the quarter. The massive 12.5 million unit difference between the two estimates from Strategy Analytics and iSuppli puts Samsung either well above or below Apple for the quarter.
Unlike Samsung, Apple publicly discloses its quarterly iPhone sales. The company revealed on Tuesday that it sold 35.1 million iPhones last quarter, representing 88 percent unit growth over the same three-month span in 2011.
One point that both Strategy Analytics and iSuppli can agree on is Samsung passed Nokia to become the top overall mobile phone vendor in the March quarter. Strategy Analytics' higher estimate pegs Samsung's mobile phone shipments as 93.5 million, while iSuppli has the company slightly lower, with shipments of 92 million.
That distinction is important. The two estimates agree pretty well on total phone shipments. They differ on 'smartphone' shipments'. It appears that there's a discrepancy on what they each consider to be a smart phone. That would suggest that the 'missing' 12.5 M units are low end smartphones or high end feature phones - depending on who is counting them.
Since Apple is not the least bit interested in cheap, entry level smartphones, only the higher end smart phones (probably not even the full 32 M as counted by iSuppli) are relevant to Apple's business model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3
On another note.........does it matter? Its not like Samsung can rape the customer for a ridiculously high margin like Apple does and force the carriers into crazy high subsidies which they can't get out of for at least another 24 months. So in the end Apple will always make the most profit, even if they only sell half of what Samsung does.
Which planet do you live on? You don't think Samsung phones are greatly subsidized? In fact, if you look at full list price for an unlocked phone, Samsung's phones are every bit as expensive as iPhones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
Interesting thought about returns at Samsung. There are anecdotal reports of return rates as high as 40% for some Android-based smartphones. Meanwhile, ITG Investment Research reports that Samsung Galaxy Tab return rates were 16%.
With all the reports of battery issues, GPS inaccuracy, heating issues, Wi-Fi issues and yellowish screen problems it seems likely that Samsung's top selling smartphone may have a relatively high return rate.
That can't be. The iPhone has antenna problems, battery problems, cases that break easily, and it's a closed ecosystem. Surely Apple can't have a 3% return rate compared to Android's double digit rates...
/s
Considering how many quarters Samsung have been consistantly "shipping" 30+ M phones, i don't see how this can be true. If they shipped 30M to stores Q1, and most of those didn't sell to end customers, why would the stores order another 30M the next quarter especially if no new models were introduced, as stated by the article?
At steady state, i think we can safety assume shipped = sold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
Considering how many quarters Samsung have been consistantly "shipping" 30+ M phones, i don't see how this can be true. If they shipped 30M to stores Q1, and most of those didn't sell to end customers, why would the stores order another 30M the next quarter especially if no new models were introduced, as stated by the article?
At steady state, i think we can safety assume shipped = sold.
Except that those numbers, whether shipped or sold, are just guesses. Until Samsung actually states the number of smartphones sold these numbers are as valuable as any number I guess. My guess is that Samsung sold 3 smartphones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
Except that those numbers, whether shipped or sold, are just guesses. Until Samsung actually states the number of smartphones sold these numbers are as valuable as any number I guess. My guess is that Samsung sold 3 smartphones.
Actually, I'm not sure I'd trust them not to lie at this point. There really ought to be a third party that reports all smartphone sales.
A third party that doesn't advertise. That doesn't have any stake in the industry.
To answer the posts below, AI has commented on at least one occasion how the iPhone gets a higher subsidy than Android phones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yeah, you certainly don't see Samsung phones selling for $199 and users being forced to take on a two year contract to own… one…
OH FREAKING WAIT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Which planet do you live on? You don't think Samsung phones are greatly subsidized? In fact, if you look at full list price for an unlocked phone, Samsung's phones are every bit as expensive as iPhones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
Considering how many quarters Samsung have been consistantly "shipping" 30+ M phones, i don't see how this can be true. If they shipped 30M to stores Q1, and most of those didn't sell to end customers, why would the stores order another 30M the next quarter especially if no new models were introduced, as stated by the article?YY
At steady state, i think we can safety assume shipped = sold.
No, Samsung ships them once, then after they come back unsold ships them again and counts two shipments per phone. It's the same logic as with the Android activations -- each time you reboot your phone counts as a new activation.
/s
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
To answer the posts below, AI has commented on at least one occasion how the iPhone gets a higher subsidy than Android phones.
First, the iPhone gets a higher subsidy than SOME Android phones. Maybe even the average Android phone. But high end Android phones get very similar subsidies.
More importantly, it's irrelevant. Sleepy said: "Its not like Samsung can rape the customer for a ridiculously high margin like Apple does and force the carriers into crazy high subsidies which they can't get out of for at least another 24 months."
Since many Android phones have a 24 month contract and high subsidies, sleepy was wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
To answer the posts below, AI has commented on at least one occasion how the iPhone gets a higher subsidy than Android phones.
So Android manufacturers are lying about their MSRPs? Or iPhone users are paying more per month than Android users on the same plan?