What Samsung calls a "smartphone" is questionable. Their own figures (before they stopped reporting) showed a massive growth from 2010 to 2011 (something like 4 times). However their total phone shipments didn't increase that much year over year.
What Samsung did is "re-classify" devices that were feature phones and move them into the smartphone category. Suddenly they're reporting huge growth in smartphone sales with a corresponding decline in feature/dumb phones.
Did you know Samsung is currently selling a brand-new phone with a 2.8" 320x240 screen running Android Eclair? Not ICS, not Honeycomb, not Gingerbread, not even Froyo. Eclair. This phone doesn't even come close to an iPhone 3, yet it's still being sold as a "new" device. Samsung is also selling Windows Mobile, Win 7 and Bada phones. When Samsung sells xx million smartphones, they are not all Android devices. And within Android they are selling a crap load of cheap phones.
I'd really love for Samsung to tell us how may "high-end" devices they sell. That's a valid comparison to Apple who doesn't sell garbage phones with QVGA screens and an OS that's 5 versions behind.
That's exactly what I was saying above. Both sources agree on the total number of phones sold by Samsung but they differ by 12 M units on the number of smartphones. The most likely reason is that one of them is counting 'advanced feature phones' as smartphones and the other isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
Does Samsung only sell high-end phones? Can Samsung get the same subsidies as Apple? Is Samsung as influential as Apple so as to be able to dictate similar conditions? If one of your answers is "no", then Sleepy is probably right...
You are apparently very confused. Maybe no one has explained it to you, but Samsung sells a wide variety of phones, unlike Apple who sells only one major type. That's the issue here.
At AT&T's store, the Samsung Galaxy Note is $749 and is discounted to $299. That's exactly the same as the 32 GB iPhone. List $749, discounted to $299. So Samsung is getting exactly the same discount on their high end phones as Apple is and both are subsidized by $450.00.
The problem is that Samsung also sells the Focus Flash with a $389 list price, discounted to $100.00 after subsidy ($289 subsidy). So while Samsung's AVERAGE subsidy is probably lower, when you look only at comparable phones, it appears to be the same.
And that's the issue cited above. All of Apples phones are high end iPhones. Samsung is reporting numbers which include crapware phones that no one wants. If you look at how many people are buying high end phones (which is the only market Apple competes in), Apple is winning hands down. After all, even with iSuppli's numbers (which probably include mid-range phones, but leave out the really low end garbage), Apple is ahead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07
This is funny because until recently most Android fans here denied strongly it's not cheaper than iPhone (so we're not a cheapo). That's when Android *is winning*, now looks like thing is turned 360 degree because all I see is the claim iPhone is way more expensive. Very funny..
That's because Android fans don't believe in facts or reality. They'd rather sling FUD and hope it sticks.
In reality, the Galaxy Note is $749-same as the 32 GB iPhone. It's not quite comparable, but the Note has less internal storage but a larger screen, so it's probably the closest comparison).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I noticed my iPhone had some serious GPS inaccuracies during a recent trip and the Maps app was totally useless in finding things like ATMs, coffee shops and restaurants in the downtown area of a major US city. I don't know enough about how assisted GPS actually works but it would pinpoint my location consistently off by about a city block. I was looking for a B of A ATM and it lead me two blocks away where there may have been a bank at one time but was now only a hole in the ground under construction. Later I discovered there was a BoA ATM within 100 yards of my hotel which did not show up on the map at all. Same thing with coffee shops. When searching for specialty coffee all it showed was Starbucks when in fact there was a nice organic coffee shop very close by which again was not on the map.
Apple makes a nice phone but it isn't perfect by a long shot.
I guess I missed the part where anyone claimed that the iPhone was perfect. Maybe try a real argument next time instead of a straw man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Apple currently has a 3% return rate on iPhones and Android phones average double-digits?? I noted the sarcasm tag so I'll assume that wasn't meant as a factual statement.
Let me get this straight, you make blanket statements about Koreans being notorious for doctoring results by citing two examples? How old are you?
By your reasoning if I were to give 5 examples of ANY country where their individuals/companies/institutions cheated I can make blanket statements about their country.
You forgot to state that the forum's topic is all about a SOUTH KOREAN COMPANY CALLED SAMESUNG--claiming it sold more phones than Apple--so that is the reason for citing how Koreans (be it corporations, students, government) are known to doctor their results for their own personal gains!
You forgot to state that the forum's topic is all about a SOUTH KOREAN COMPANY CALLED SAMESUNG--claiming it sold more phones than Apple--so that is the reason for citing how Koreans (be it corporations, students, government) are known to doctor their results for their own personal gains!
You need to read much more carefully than you do. Samsung didn't claim to sell more smartphones than Apple.
FWIW, I agree with a previous poster that it's immature and illogical to extend something a single person or two did into a blanket statement insulting all of that countries' people.
You need to read much more carefully than you do. Samsung didn't claim to sell more smartphones than Apple.
FWIW, I agree with a previous poster that it's immature and illogical to extend something a single person or two did into a blanket statement insulting all of that countries' people.
Actually the analysis was BASED on Samsungs report:After Samsung confirmed record earnings for the March quarter on Friday, a set of new analyses estimate that thecompany overtook Apple to become the world's largest smartphone vendor while simultaneously passing long-time leader Nokia for the top spot among global mobile phone vendors.
As for my evidences--they are FACTUAL...and they are Koreans!
I assumed it wasn't based on facts. Thanks Jragosta.
It's not surprising that you're confused. Since you've never provided any facts to support any of your positions, you assumed that no one else ever did either.
The post I was quoting cited a source. Read post #6:
"ITG Investment Research reports that Samsung Galaxy Tab return rates were 16%."
Actually the analysis was BASED on Samsungs report:After Samsung confirmed record earnings for the March quarter on Friday, a set of new analyses estimate that thecompany overtook Apple to become the world's largest smartphone vendor while simultaneously passing long-time leader Nokia for the top spot among global mobile phone vendors.
As for my evidences--they are FACTUAL...and they are ALL KOREANS!
You're still wrong on both counts. Samsung didn't claim to sell more smartphones. They don't even give a number for devices, simply revenue figures that are almost assuredly true.
On your Korean insults, I could give evidence that one American is an under-educated bigot.;) That doesn't make it true for every US citizen does it?
That's exactly what I was saying above. Both sources agree on the total number of phones sold by Samsung but they differ by 12 M units on the number of smartphones. The most likely reason is that one of them is counting 'advanced feature phones' as smartphones and the other isn't.
You are apparently very confused. Maybe no one has explained it to you, but Samsung sells a wide variety of phones, unlike Apple who sells only one major type. That's the issue here.
At AT&T's store, the Samsung Galaxy Note is $749 and is discounted to $299. That's exactly the same as the 32 GB iPhone. List $749, discounted to $299. So Samsung is getting exactly the same discount on their high end phones as Apple is and both are subsidized by $450.00.
The problem is that Samsung also sells the Focus Flash with a $389 list price, discounted to $100.00 after subsidy ($289 subsidy). So while Samsung's AVERAGE subsidy is probably lower, when you look only at comparable phones, it appears to be the same.
And that's the issue cited above. All of Apples phones are high end iPhones. Samsung is reporting numbers which include crapware phones that no one wants. If you look at how many people are buying high end phones (which is the only market Apple competes in), Apple is winning hands down. After all, even with iSuppli's numbers (which probably include mid-range phones, but leave out the really low end garbage), Apple is ahead.
That's because Android fans don't believe in facts or reality. They'd rather sling FUD and hope it sticks.
In reality, the Galaxy Note is $749-same as the 32 GB iPhone. It's not quite comparable, but the Note has less internal storage but a larger screen, so it's probably the closest comparison).
I guess I missed the part where anyone claimed that the iPhone was perfect. Maybe try a real argument next time instead of a straw man.
I was repeating the numbers someone else posted.
I think you're the one who's confused. The Galaxy Note is a unique device in a league by itself. It has a freaking 5.3", 1280x800 points screen. It has a Wacom matrix and pen input. It has 4G LTE. It has a 2500 mAh battery. And Samsung choose to sell it for less than $750, as much as a simple iPhone. So, despite that in this case (as with similar high-end Android devices) the carrier offers a comparable subsidy, it's only because the hardware vendor has agreed to lower also the non-contract price, or in other words have lower profit margin.
In the other case -- the lower end devices -- carriers subsidize less, bringing the price close to that of the high-end iPhone. So many OS-agnostic buyers choose the iPhone because they get more value for their money solely from the hardware.
The results are that in the US, where most people buy their phones from the telcos, more people choose to buy iPhone than Android phones partly because they get a higher subsidy. In some European countries, where the actual costs of devices and services are more obvious, Andoid is more popular than iOS. Alternatively, for some high end devices vendors lower their price for the carrier and then get a similar to Apple subsidy, but much lower profits.
Don't get me wrong, I see why Apple would ride their success as long as they can. But at least some of it is dictated by the preferences of the US carriers who influence end-user buying decisions, likely to capitalize on selling more of their services.
It's not surprising that you're confused. Since you've never provided any facts to support any of your positions, you assumed that no one else ever did either.
The post I was quoting cited a source. Read post #6:
"ITG Investment Research reports that Samsung Galaxy Tab return rates were 16%."
So what evidence do you have that ITG is wrong?
What did that have to do with Android phones that you apparently really are claiming have an average double-digit return rate?
BTW, your statement that I never provide citations for my claims is both terrible silly as well as dishonest. I'm one of the very few here that nearly alsways has a link to support any factual claims I make. You already knew that of course so I have no idea why you'd make a plainly untrue insult.
You're still wrong on both counts. Samsung didn't claim to sell more smartphones. They don't even give a number for devices, simply revenue figures that are almost assuredly true.
On your Korean insults, I could give evidence that one American is an under-educated bigot.;) That doesn't make it true for every US citizen does it?
Ah...BUT the analysis claiming that Samsung overtook Apple will NOT exist, IF not for Samesung's report!
As for my Korean cheating evidences--it IS what it IS! Facts ARE Facts--even IF you deny it!
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.
Here recent model Samsung phones have a similar down payment as the Apple iPhone.
The difference is the current model iPhone holds it's down payment steady, but Samsung and the others quickly drop to as low as $0 down payment.
The phone companies lose out on Samsung and the others ! And customers only save on the downpayment, because they pay the same usage cost which covers most of the phone cost.
Ah...BUT the analysis claiming that Samsung overtook Apple will NOT exist, IF not for Samesung's report!
As for my Korean cheating evidences--it IS what it IS! Facts ARE Facts--even IF you deny it!
Are those responsible for doing the analysis at iSuppli or Strategy Analytics also Korean? Those were the ones making the claim.
FWIW, using the tried and true junior high name-calling (Samesung? Really?) doesn't reflect well on your maturity or reasoning. It's not something the older and more educated members here would use.
Are those responsible for doing the analysis at iSuppli or Strategy Analytics also Korean? Those were the ones making the claim.
FWIW, using the tried and true junior high name-calling (Samesung? Really?) doesn't reflect well on your maturity or reasoning. It's not something the older and more educated members here would use.
AGAIN, AGAIN:
The Strategic Analytics' analysis claiming that Samsung overtook Apple will NOT exist, IF not for Samesung's report!
AGAIN: THEIR ANALYSIS WAS BASED PURELY ON SAMESUNG'S REPORT--OR ARE YOU THAT DENSE???
YOU TOO ARE INDULGING IN EXTREME IMMATURITY BY IMPLYING THAT I AM YOUNG AND less EDUCATED! TIT FOR TAT!
Guess WHAT? WRONG IN BOTH COUNTS! Your statement is a classic example of gross speculation as opposed to FACTUAL evidence!
As for my Korean cheating evidences--it IS what it IS! Facts ARE Facts--even IF you deny it!
So when Apple reports they sold 35M iPhones in the quarter that number includes phones that haven't yet been sold to a consumer but were purchased by a reseller? If that's the case how is that different than reporting a shipped number?
I think you're the one who's confused. The Galaxy Note is a unique device in a league by itself. It has a freaking 5.3", 1280x800 points screen. It has a Wacom matrix and pen input. It has 4G LTE. It has a 2500 mAh battery. And Samsung choose to sell it for less than $750, as much as a simple iPhone. So, despite that in this case (as with similar high-end Android devices) the carrier offers a comparable subsidy, it's only because the hardware vendor has agreed to lower also the non-contract price, or in other words have lower profit margin.
In the other case -- the lower end devices -- carriers subsidize less, bringing the price close to that of the high-end iPhone. So many OS-agnostic buyers choose the iPhone because they get more value for their money solely from the hardware.
The results are that in the US, where most people buy their phones from the telcos, more people choose to buy iPhone than Android phones partly because they get a higher subsidy. In some European countries, where the actual costs of devices and services are more obvious, Andoid is more popular than iOS. Alternatively, for some high end devices vendors lower their price for the carrier and then get a similar to Apple subsidy, but much lower profits.
Don't get me wrong, I see why Apple would ride their success as long as they can. But at least some of it is dictated by the preferences of the US carriers who influence end-user buying decisions, likely to capitalize on selling more of their services.
Why should I care that you think the Note is a different product? It's listed on AT&T's web site as a cell phone - and that's the function.
Personally, I consider it to be a worthless POS compared to the iPhone, but since AT&T considers it to be comparable, that's the way I'm comparing it. And, as I pointed out, the list price is the same as the iPhone and the subsidy is the same. Ergo, you are wrong.
IIRC most top Android phones sell for less than the iPhone when bought unlocked and out of contract, when for the same phones via the carriers the prices are equal. Android vendors are essentially sponsoring Apple through the carriers. Which makes perfect sense if you look at the profits. Apple has positioned itself to be able to drive a good bargain from the carriers.
...and the carriers have bank balances that show that an iPhone will make them more money in a customer's hands than a "smart Android" phone will.
Why should I care that you think the Note is a different product? It's listed on AT&T's web site as a cell phone - and that's the function.
Personally, I consider it to be a worthless POS compared to the iPhone, but since AT&T considers it to be comparable, that's the way I'm comparing it. And, as I pointed out, the list price is the same as the iPhone and the subsidy is the same. Ergo, you are wrong.
Read the post above yours: your numbers are wrong. The 32GB iPhone is sold for $749 without commitment, and for $299 with; The Note goes for $649 w/o commitment and $299 with. So there's a $100 difference in the subsidy.
Ergo, you're wrong.
I should have checked your facts before trying to argue logic.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
What Samsung calls a "smartphone" is questionable. Their own figures (before they stopped reporting) showed a massive growth from 2010 to 2011 (something like 4 times). However their total phone shipments didn't increase that much year over year.
What Samsung did is "re-classify" devices that were feature phones and move them into the smartphone category. Suddenly they're reporting huge growth in smartphone sales with a corresponding decline in feature/dumb phones.
Did you know Samsung is currently selling a brand-new phone with a 2.8" 320x240 screen running Android Eclair? Not ICS, not Honeycomb, not Gingerbread, not even Froyo. Eclair. This phone doesn't even come close to an iPhone 3, yet it's still being sold as a "new" device. Samsung is also selling Windows Mobile, Win 7 and Bada phones. When Samsung sells xx million smartphones, they are not all Android devices. And within Android they are selling a crap load of cheap phones.
I'd really love for Samsung to tell us how may "high-end" devices they sell. That's a valid comparison to Apple who doesn't sell garbage phones with QVGA screens and an OS that's 5 versions behind.
That's exactly what I was saying above. Both sources agree on the total number of phones sold by Samsung but they differ by 12 M units on the number of smartphones. The most likely reason is that one of them is counting 'advanced feature phones' as smartphones and the other isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
Does Samsung only sell high-end phones? Can Samsung get the same subsidies as Apple? Is Samsung as influential as Apple so as to be able to dictate similar conditions? If one of your answers is "no", then Sleepy is probably right...
You are apparently very confused. Maybe no one has explained it to you, but Samsung sells a wide variety of phones, unlike Apple who sells only one major type. That's the issue here.
At AT&T's store, the Samsung Galaxy Note is $749 and is discounted to $299. That's exactly the same as the 32 GB iPhone. List $749, discounted to $299. So Samsung is getting exactly the same discount on their high end phones as Apple is and both are subsidized by $450.00.
The problem is that Samsung also sells the Focus Flash with a $389 list price, discounted to $100.00 after subsidy ($289 subsidy). So while Samsung's AVERAGE subsidy is probably lower, when you look only at comparable phones, it appears to be the same.
And that's the issue cited above. All of Apples phones are high end iPhones. Samsung is reporting numbers which include crapware phones that no one wants. If you look at how many people are buying high end phones (which is the only market Apple competes in), Apple is winning hands down. After all, even with iSuppli's numbers (which probably include mid-range phones, but leave out the really low end garbage), Apple is ahead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07
This is funny because until recently most Android fans here denied strongly it's not cheaper than iPhone (so we're not a cheapo). That's when Android *is winning*, now looks like thing is turned 360 degree because all I see is the claim iPhone is way more expensive. Very funny..
That's because Android fans don't believe in facts or reality. They'd rather sling FUD and hope it sticks.
In reality, the Galaxy Note is $749-same as the 32 GB iPhone. It's not quite comparable, but the Note has less internal storage but a larger screen, so it's probably the closest comparison).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I noticed my iPhone had some serious GPS inaccuracies during a recent trip and the Maps app was totally useless in finding things like ATMs, coffee shops and restaurants in the downtown area of a major US city. I don't know enough about how assisted GPS actually works but it would pinpoint my location consistently off by about a city block. I was looking for a B of A ATM and it lead me two blocks away where there may have been a bank at one time but was now only a hole in the ground under construction. Later I discovered there was a BoA ATM within 100 yards of my hotel which did not show up on the map at all. Same thing with coffee shops. When searching for specialty coffee all it showed was Starbucks when in fact there was a nice organic coffee shop very close by which again was not on the map.
Apple makes a nice phone but it isn't perfect by a long shot.
I guess I missed the part where anyone claimed that the iPhone was perfect. Maybe try a real argument next time instead of a straw man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Apple currently has a 3% return rate on iPhones and Android phones average double-digits?? I noted the sarcasm tag so I'll assume that wasn't meant as a factual statement.
I was repeating the numbers someone else posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulhkim
Let me get this straight, you make blanket statements about Koreans being notorious for doctoring results by citing two examples? How old are you?
By your reasoning if I were to give 5 examples of ANY country where their individuals/companies/institutions cheated I can make blanket statements about their country.
You forgot to state that the forum's topic is all about a SOUTH KOREAN COMPANY CALLED SAMESUNG--claiming it sold more phones than Apple--so that is the reason for citing how Koreans (be it corporations, students, government) are known to doctor their results for their own personal gains!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ4Ev3r
You forgot to state that the forum's topic is all about a SOUTH KOREAN COMPANY CALLED SAMESUNG--claiming it sold more phones than Apple--so that is the reason for citing how Koreans (be it corporations, students, government) are known to doctor their results for their own personal gains!
You need to read much more carefully than you do. Samsung didn't claim to sell more smartphones than Apple.
FWIW, I agree with a previous poster that it's immature and illogical to extend something a single person or two did into a blanket statement insulting all of that countries' people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I was repeating the numbers someone else posted.
I assumed it wasn't based on facts. Thanks Jragosta.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
You need to read much more carefully than you do. Samsung didn't claim to sell more smartphones than Apple.
FWIW, I agree with a previous poster that it's immature and illogical to extend something a single person or two did into a blanket statement insulting all of that countries' people.
Actually the analysis was BASED on Samsungs report: After Samsung confirmed record earnings for the March quarter on Friday, a set of new analyses estimate that the company overtook Apple to become the world's largest smartphone vendor while simultaneously passing long-time leader Nokia for the top spot among global mobile phone vendors.
As for my evidences--they are FACTUAL...and they are Koreans!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I assumed it wasn't based on facts. Thanks Jragosta.
It's not surprising that you're confused. Since you've never provided any facts to support any of your positions, you assumed that no one else ever did either.
The post I was quoting cited a source. Read post #6:
"ITG Investment Research reports that Samsung Galaxy Tab return rates were 16%."
So what evidence do you have that ITG is wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ4Ev3r
Actually the analysis was BASED on Samsungs report: After Samsung confirmed record earnings for the March quarter on Friday, a set of new analyses estimate that the company overtook Apple to become the world's largest smartphone vendor while simultaneously passing long-time leader Nokia for the top spot among global mobile phone vendors.
As for my evidences--they are FACTUAL...and they are ALL KOREANS!
You're still wrong on both counts. Samsung didn't claim to sell more smartphones. They don't even give a number for devices, simply revenue figures that are almost assuredly true.
On your Korean insults, I could give evidence that one American is an under-educated bigot.;) That doesn't make it true for every US citizen does it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That's exactly what I was saying above. Both sources agree on the total number of phones sold by Samsung but they differ by 12 M units on the number of smartphones. The most likely reason is that one of them is counting 'advanced feature phones' as smartphones and the other isn't.
You are apparently very confused. Maybe no one has explained it to you, but Samsung sells a wide variety of phones, unlike Apple who sells only one major type. That's the issue here.
At AT&T's store, the Samsung Galaxy Note is $749 and is discounted to $299. That's exactly the same as the 32 GB iPhone. List $749, discounted to $299. So Samsung is getting exactly the same discount on their high end phones as Apple is and both are subsidized by $450.00.
The problem is that Samsung also sells the Focus Flash with a $389 list price, discounted to $100.00 after subsidy ($289 subsidy). So while Samsung's AVERAGE subsidy is probably lower, when you look only at comparable phones, it appears to be the same.
And that's the issue cited above. All of Apples phones are high end iPhones. Samsung is reporting numbers which include crapware phones that no one wants. If you look at how many people are buying high end phones (which is the only market Apple competes in), Apple is winning hands down. After all, even with iSuppli's numbers (which probably include mid-range phones, but leave out the really low end garbage), Apple is ahead.
That's because Android fans don't believe in facts or reality. They'd rather sling FUD and hope it sticks.
In reality, the Galaxy Note is $749-same as the 32 GB iPhone. It's not quite comparable, but the Note has less internal storage but a larger screen, so it's probably the closest comparison).
I guess I missed the part where anyone claimed that the iPhone was perfect. Maybe try a real argument next time instead of a straw man.
I was repeating the numbers someone else posted.
I think you're the one who's confused. The Galaxy Note is a unique device in a league by itself. It has a freaking 5.3", 1280x800 points screen. It has a Wacom matrix and pen input. It has 4G LTE. It has a 2500 mAh battery. And Samsung choose to sell it for less than $750, as much as a simple iPhone. So, despite that in this case (as with similar high-end Android devices) the carrier offers a comparable subsidy, it's only because the hardware vendor has agreed to lower also the non-contract price, or in other words have lower profit margin.
In the other case -- the lower end devices -- carriers subsidize less, bringing the price close to that of the high-end iPhone. So many OS-agnostic buyers choose the iPhone because they get more value for their money solely from the hardware.
The results are that in the US, where most people buy their phones from the telcos, more people choose to buy iPhone than Android phones partly because they get a higher subsidy. In some European countries, where the actual costs of devices and services are more obvious, Andoid is more popular than iOS. Alternatively, for some high end devices vendors lower their price for the carrier and then get a similar to Apple subsidy, but much lower profits.
Don't get me wrong, I see why Apple would ride their success as long as they can. But at least some of it is dictated by the preferences of the US carriers who influence end-user buying decisions, likely to capitalize on selling more of their services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
It's not surprising that you're confused. Since you've never provided any facts to support any of your positions, you assumed that no one else ever did either.
The post I was quoting cited a source. Read post #6:
"ITG Investment Research reports that Samsung Galaxy Tab return rates were 16%."
So what evidence do you have that ITG is wrong?
What did that have to do with Android phones that you apparently really are claiming have an average double-digit return rate?
BTW, your statement that I never provide citations for my claims is both terrible silly as well as dishonest. I'm one of the very few here that nearly alsways has a link to support any factual claims I make. You already knew that of course so I have no idea why you'd make a plainly untrue insult.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
You're still wrong on both counts. Samsung didn't claim to sell more smartphones. They don't even give a number for devices, simply revenue figures that are almost assuredly true.
On your Korean insults, I could give evidence that one American is an under-educated bigot.;) That doesn't make it true for every US citizen does it?
Ah...BUT the analysis claiming that Samsung overtook Apple will NOT exist, IF not for Samesung's report!
As for my Korean cheating evidences--it IS what it IS! Facts ARE Facts--even IF you deny it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3
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.
Here recent model Samsung phones have a similar down payment as the Apple iPhone.
The difference is the current model iPhone holds it's down payment steady, but Samsung and the others quickly drop to as low as $0 down payment.
The phone companies lose out on Samsung and the others ! And customers only save on the downpayment, because they pay the same usage cost which covers most of the phone cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ4Ev3r
Ah...BUT the analysis claiming that Samsung overtook Apple will NOT exist, IF not for Samesung's report!
As for my Korean cheating evidences--it IS what it IS! Facts ARE Facts--even IF you deny it!
Are those responsible for doing the analysis at iSuppli or Strategy Analytics also Korean? Those were the ones making the claim.
FWIW, using the tried and true junior high name-calling (Samesung? Really?) doesn't reflect well on your maturity or reasoning. It's not something the older and more educated members here would use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Are those responsible for doing the analysis at iSuppli or Strategy Analytics also Korean? Those were the ones making the claim.
FWIW, using the tried and true junior high name-calling (Samesung? Really?) doesn't reflect well on your maturity or reasoning. It's not something the older and more educated members here would use.
AGAIN, AGAIN:
The Strategic Analytics' analysis claiming that Samsung overtook Apple will NOT exist, IF not for Samesung's report!
AGAIN: THEIR ANALYSIS WAS BASED PURELY ON SAMESUNG'S REPORT--OR ARE YOU THAT DENSE???
YOU TOO ARE INDULGING IN EXTREME IMMATURITY BY IMPLYING THAT I AM YOUNG AND less EDUCATED! TIT FOR TAT!
Guess WHAT? WRONG IN BOTH COUNTS! Your statement is a classic example of gross speculation as opposed to FACTUAL evidence!
As for my Korean cheating evidences--it IS what it IS! Facts ARE Facts--even IF you deny it!
Ooookay then. . .
So when Apple reports they sold 35M iPhones in the quarter that number includes phones that haven't yet been sold to a consumer but were purchased by a reseller? If that's the case how is that different than reporting a shipped number?
The no contract price for the Note is actually $649 not $749.
It sells for $299 with contract so $350 is subsidized.
ATT doesn't have the no contract price for iPhone 4S but Verizon does.
It is $649 for the 16GB, sells for $199 so $450 is subsidized, more than for the Samsung Note.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
I think you're the one who's confused. The Galaxy Note is a unique device in a league by itself. It has a freaking 5.3", 1280x800 points screen. It has a Wacom matrix and pen input. It has 4G LTE. It has a 2500 mAh battery. And Samsung choose to sell it for less than $750, as much as a simple iPhone. So, despite that in this case (as with similar high-end Android devices) the carrier offers a comparable subsidy, it's only because the hardware vendor has agreed to lower also the non-contract price, or in other words have lower profit margin.
In the other case -- the lower end devices -- carriers subsidize less, bringing the price close to that of the high-end iPhone. So many OS-agnostic buyers choose the iPhone because they get more value for their money solely from the hardware.
The results are that in the US, where most people buy their phones from the telcos, more people choose to buy iPhone than Android phones partly because they get a higher subsidy. In some European countries, where the actual costs of devices and services are more obvious, Andoid is more popular than iOS. Alternatively, for some high end devices vendors lower their price for the carrier and then get a similar to Apple subsidy, but much lower profits.
Don't get me wrong, I see why Apple would ride their success as long as they can. But at least some of it is dictated by the preferences of the US carriers who influence end-user buying decisions, likely to capitalize on selling more of their services.
Why should I care that you think the Note is a different product? It's listed on AT&T's web site as a cell phone - and that's the function.
Personally, I consider it to be a worthless POS compared to the iPhone, but since AT&T considers it to be comparable, that's the way I'm comparing it. And, as I pointed out, the list price is the same as the iPhone and the subsidy is the same. Ergo, you are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
IIRC most top Android phones sell for less than the iPhone when bought unlocked and out of contract, when for the same phones via the carriers the prices are equal. Android vendors are essentially sponsoring Apple through the carriers. Which makes perfect sense if you look at the profits. Apple has positioned itself to be able to drive a good bargain from the carriers.
...and the carriers have bank balances that show that an iPhone will make them more money in a customer's hands than a "smart Android" phone will.
(Yes , I know, "Smart Android" is an oxymoron).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Why should I care that you think the Note is a different product? It's listed on AT&T's web site as a cell phone - and that's the function.
But but but, with a "Note" you get a free stylus that you can use to ream your ears, clean your fingernails, and do other body grooming functions!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Why should I care that you think the Note is a different product? It's listed on AT&T's web site as a cell phone - and that's the function.
Personally, I consider it to be a worthless POS compared to the iPhone, but since AT&T considers it to be comparable, that's the way I'm comparing it. And, as I pointed out, the list price is the same as the iPhone and the subsidy is the same. Ergo, you are wrong.
Read the post above yours: your numbers are wrong. The 32GB iPhone is sold for $749 without commitment, and for $299 with; The Note goes for $649 w/o commitment and $299 with. So there's a $100 difference in the subsidy.
Ergo, you're wrong.
I should have checked your facts before trying to argue logic.