[ Remember TS when I pointed out a post where the person mentioned "hurt feelings" and I told you who it really was regardless of the alias... well, here's your proof ]
Or possibly you cry whine and moan so much, more than one person questions you regarding hurt feelings. Since you apparently have zero tech knowledge, if I was an alter ego (as you continue to cry whine and moan about) a simple ip check would prove other wise. So I Say it again, do you need an iTissue or maybe your nightly meds?
The implication here is that people can't change their IP, which is fallacy.
Oh, to clarify, right now I'm staying out of this. Just correcting a point.
Staying out in the sense that I'm not judging that. I WILL say to knock it off, though. Go ahead and insult each other all you want in PMs (and then… report the respective PMs because we don't want insults here at all…), but let's end it in this thread now, please.
What SEC documents from Samsung are you referring to, and what do they report? I'll bet, none (at least none that you've looked at). Stop digging.
As to things at the level of "iPhone 4S or 3GS or whatever sales," I could give a hoot. I don't get into arguments or make assertions based on complete hypotheticals. I can, however, tell you quite confidently how many handsets Apple sells every quarter, and at what average price. That is huge. That is way more than anyone -- Samsung, HTC, Nokia, RIM, etc -- provides.
If you are happy engaging in a conversation with those who are equally blasé about such basic facts, good for you. Go ahead. I tend not to waste my time on conversations that are devoid of any facts whatsoever.
Please don't misunderstand: I have no issues if Samsung's sales were less than, equal to, or greater than that of Apple. I just don't make assertions as though I know whether any one of those plausible outcomes is a fact, when I have no facts. The reason is, that would be no different from my pulling, say, an EPS number for Samsung out of my hat.
1) I never said anything about Samsung's SEC filings. I used SEC filings and quarterly reports as examples for legal documents I'll believe. That's what the any is in any legal documents. If there is reason to challenge Samsung (or Apple's or anyone else's) reports I will, otherwise I'll take it as canon.
2) Do you den that Samsung is highly profitable in the handset market? Do you deny that Samsung is one of about two vendors (I think HTC is the only other known vendor in the black) making money outside of Apple?
3) Do you honestly think they are doing it by stuffing a channel quarter after quarter with an increasingly high number of units? Or by having nearly all their devices returned? Or by making profits on cheap dumb phones? I sure hope not! The only logical and rational answer is they are making money on their premium handsets. All the number seem to fit so why assume their quarterly earnings in that department are falsified. Regardless of how you feel about Samsung and Google's blatant stealing of Apple's IP Samsung is making a killing off their premium smartphones running Android. If you have a different theory on why they are so successful or how everyone in the industry believes their earnings reports then by all means present it but lopsided conspiracy theories are doing no one any good.
You have no clue as to whether or not that is true.
If you do, I'd like to see a link for it.
I guess common sense isn't enough? Apparently, you'd also need proof to show that Windows machines out number Mac's?
I'm not going to do a Google search for your lazy ass. You can do that yourself and every single hit will show you the same thing. It's more than a 3 to 1 margin in favor of Android devices now. I don't need to post links for common knowledge... Well, common to anyone with an IQ above room temp I guess.
The implication here is that people can't change their IP, which is fallacy.
Oh, to clarify, right now I'm staying out of this. Just correcting a point.
Staying out in the sense that I'm not judging that. I WILL say to knock it off, though. Go ahead and insult each other all you want in PMs (and then… report the respective PMs because we don't want insults here at all…), but let's end it in this thread now, please.
And I thought GoogleGuy referred to me. I guess it doesn't.
Nah. He's just another iGuy with Apple approved knee pads to suck the kool-aid right from the tap. If the data doesn't fit the arguement, the data will get altered so it does. Or just make crap up to show Apple in the best possible light.
I have a bunch of Apple products and when it comes to PC's, only a Mac will do for me. But that's an opinion formed after nearly 3 decades of pc use. When it comes to mobile electronics, think for yourself. Don't believe the propoganda. If that means an iDevice, fine. But don't try to make it seem as though it is the only option for everyone or that other companies aren't successful.
Now, considering that the SIII has such a large screen and a quad core processor as well as being open and all the fandroids are so eager to point out that those are life and death features that no phone could possilby do without, how do you explain those figures?
1) I never said anything about Samsung's SEC filings. I used SEC filings and quarterly reports as examples for legal documents I'll believe. That's what the any is in any legal documents. If there is reason to challenge Samsung (or Apple's or anyone else's) reports I will, otherwise I'll take it as canon.
Then, all I am saying is that, unlike Apple, there are no SEC filing from Samsung that tell us how many handsets they sell and at what average price. Without that info, I don't what their market share it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
2) Do you den that Samsung is highly profitable in the handset market? Do you deny that Samsung is one of about two vendors (I think HTC is the only other known vendor in the black) making money outside of Apple?
"Highly" profitable? What you mean by "highly"? As profitable as Apple? >0? If the former, no. If the latter, yes. As to whether they only one of a couple of vendors, I don't know. Let's stipulate they are profitable. So what? What does that tell you about whether they sold 6 million SIIIs or not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
3) Do you honestly think they are doing it by stuffing a channel quarter after quarter with an increasingly high number of units? Or by having nearly all their devices returned? Or by making profits on cheap dumb phones?
Again, I don't know. Nobody does. But I can guess, like all the fandroids do: their ASP is quite low, as is their profits. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that it does not cover its cost of capital. I can't prove that, but no one else can prove the opposite either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
All the number seem to fit so why assume their quarterly earnings in that department are falsified. Regardless of how you feel about Samsung and Google's blatant stealing of Apple's IP Samsung is making a killing off their premium smartphones running Android. If you have a different theory on why they are so successful or how everyone in the industry believes their earnings reports then by all means present it but lopsided conspiracy theories are doing no one any good.
You really need to get a grip here. I have never claimed that Samsung is 'stealing' Apple's IP. You probably are confusing your own viewpoints on that issue with mine. I am still going with the flow on the judgments that are slowly piling up, and I'll form a view on that some day. But I don't have one (and have never claimed one).
Conspiracy theories? Please. There is no conspiracy. I am guessing that their net sales are probably not as good as everyone claims, which is likely the main reason they are not reporting actual numbers. They've got themselves in a bit of a bind, possibly. That is not to say they don't sell lots, or that they don't sell more than Apple does. They may. Or may not. I know I am sounding repetitive here, but all I am saying is that I have no clue, nor do you. If you want to keep operating on the premise that they sell a lot, and are highly profitable -- which, I also keep saying, if true, that's wonderful -- that's totally fine. But I like to deal with facts, that's all.
I guess common sense isn't enough? Apparently, you'd also need proof to show that Windows machines out number Mac's?
I'm not going to do a Google search for your lazy ass. You can do that yourself and every single hit will show you the same thing. It's more than a 3 to 1 margin in favor of Android devices now. I don't need to post links for common knowledge... Well, common to anyone with an IQ above room temp I guess.
You are welcome to your "common sense." I like audited numbers.
If internet 'hits' were facts, Elvis would be living next door to me, and Michael Jackson would be dating him.
C'mon man admit it - it's obviously a popular phone which is selling well whether anyone on here likes it or not.
I doubt many of these people would have bought an iPhone anyway as most Android users I know are Windows users who hate Apple products with a passion.
I don't doubt that it's popular and will sell millons.
However, I have to question the sanity of a purchasing decision by someone whose main criterion is that they hate the competition. It must be really sad to be an Android fan and have no other reason to by your phone than "I hate Apple".
Billions a quarter falls into my "highly" category.
You really need to get a grip here. I have never claimed that Samsung is 'stealing' Apple's IP. You probably are confusing your own viewpoints on that issue with mine. I am still going with the flow on the judgments that are slowly piling up, and I'll form a view on that some day. But I don't have one (and have never claimed one).
Whether Apple can prove it in a court of law is a different matter than if they have actually done it. I look at many of Samsung's products and there is no shadow of a doubt that their changes in design are a direct result from copying Apple.
Conspiracy theories? Please. There is no conspiracy. I am guessing that their net sales are probably not as good as everyone claims, which is likely the main reason they are not reporting actual numbers. They've got themselves in a bit of a bind, possibly. That is not to say they don't sell lots, or that they don't sell more than Apple does. They may. Or may not. I know I am sounding repetitive here, but all I am saying is that I have no clue, nor do you. If you want to keep operating on the premise that they sell a lot, and are highly profitable -- which, I also keep saying, if true, that's wonderful -- that's totally fine. But I like to deal with facts, that's all.
Samsung is highly profitable in the handset market. Even pro Apple sites like Daring Fireball and Asymco have stated it. Just because you can't get an exact number on one metric doesn't mean general figures and trends can't be deduced. I'm not sure why you are so anti-Samsung here. You're usually more objective, yet i don't once recall you claiming that we can't know if the iPhone 4S is successful because Apple doesn't break out iPhone model numbers.
Let's assume that the iPhone sales were evenly divided between 3S, 4 and 4S. That means nearly 12 M of each - so each of them outsold the Galaxy SIII by two to one. Of course, it wasn't evenly split and the 4S outsold the other two by a large margin, so the difference between the 4S and the SIII was even greater.
Let's put it into perspective. The iPhone 4S sold 4 M units in its first weekend - and virtually every one ended up in customers' hands since they were in short supply. The SIII sold 6.5 M units in the first 2 months - and some of those (I don't know how large or small the number is) were in the channel.
Now, considering that the SIII has such a large screen and a quad core processor as well as being open and all the fandroids are so eager to point out that those are life and death features that no phone could possilby do without, how do you explain those figures?
Apparently you are the one in need a basic math lesson, so let me offer a helping hand.
First I will correct the odd way in which you calculate duration. When the S3 went on sale May 29th, and the quarter ended June 30th, that comes out to a duration of 33 days. 33 days does NOT equal "2 months" by any stretch of the imagination.
Second, lets correct the way in which you calculate rate and time. At 33 days, and 6.5M units, the S3 was shipping at an average rate of almost 200k phones per day during a PARTIAL release. Samsung would have shipped almost 18M S3 units at this rate if it had been available for the entire quarter (91*200k). Heck, this is the case without even taking into account the fact that it is just now being released into one of the largest consumer markets, the US!
Third, lets correct the way in which you calculate channel inventory. When a company is NOT able to keep up with demand, as is the case with the S3, this means that shipped units go straight to the consumer. Do you really think that the US market has been delayed with excess inventory in the channel? The correct answer is NO.
"Plan on selling them" is not the same as "selling them" (which is not the same as "shipping them').
That is not what I asked for. Simply, it is for audited sales numbers. US companies are required to reports basic stuff like that if they believe is is material.
Please. I did not say that. In fact, how could they possibly be 'lying' when they've not said anything about what their sales are? All you have are estimates from third parties.
I don't have any clue about that. Maybe they give two away for every one that someone buys, maybe they have fire sales..... I have no clue, and the more important point is, you don't either.
Ah, the irony...
My point was.... every quarter Samsung produces new phones. If there were millions of unsold phones sitting around in carrier stores... the stores wouldn't order any more from Samsung. It's like that in every retail business. Samsung keeps "shipping" the phones to stores... so I tend to believe they are also "selling" those phones to consumers. Have you ever seen a Samsung phone out on the street? I've seen plenty.
That's why I have a hard time believing this notion of "Samsung ships but never sells..."
And it's also hard to believe that a brand new flagship phone like the GSIII is having difficulty being sold.
Isn't Samsung a Korean company? Maybe they don't have to report that stuff.
Why doesn't Amazon provide Kindle sales numbers? They're a US company. Can the SEC sue Amazon for not providing numbers?
Maybe Samsung... like Amazon... is afraid to publish those results?
I know you like audited numbers... but Samsung does not provide end-user sales.
That's neither good nor bad... it's just what they do.
We must rely on 3rd party analysts... and they all say Samsung is selling very well. So..... yeah.
I'm smart enough to know that a company doesn't produce a bunch of products if they don't plan on selling them...
That applies to every company.
I don't need a list with the names and addresses of every person on the planet who bought a Samsung phone over the last 90 days.
But you can go on and believe that Samsung is outright lying with everything they say... or that they produce a bunch of phones with no intention to sell and instead shove them in a warehouse somewhere...
We're talking about billions of dollars in inventory here... don't be a fool :-)
Of course they plan on selling them... but the corpses of dead gadgets litter the landscape. Xoom, Touchpad, Playbook, Galaxy Tab v1.
... and I would never ever put it past Samsung to inflate its numbers.
You might ask HP about that wrt the Touchpad.
Or maybe RIM wrt their tablet (whatever the heck it was called - I can't keep all the 'iPad killers' straight.
Haha, true. The tablet market is a hard nut to crack.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You have to love GoogleGuy math.
And I thought GoogleGuy referred to me. I guess it doesn't.
Or possibly you cry whine and moan so much, more than one person questions you regarding hurt feelings. Since you apparently have zero tech knowledge, if I was an alter ego (as you continue to cry whine and moan about) a simple ip check would prove other wise. So I Say it again, do you need an iTissue or maybe your nightly meds?
The implication here is that people can't change their IP, which is fallacy.
Oh, to clarify, right now I'm staying out of this. Just correcting a point.
Staying out in the sense that I'm not judging that. I WILL say to knock it off, though. Go ahead and insult each other all you want in PMs (and then… report the respective PMs because we don't want insults here at all…), but let's end it in this thread now, please.
1) I never said anything about Samsung's SEC filings. I used SEC filings and quarterly reports as examples for legal documents I'll believe. That's what the any is in any legal documents. If there is reason to challenge Samsung (or Apple's or anyone else's) reports I will, otherwise I'll take it as canon.
2) Do you den that Samsung is highly profitable in the handset market? Do you deny that Samsung is one of about two vendors (I think HTC is the only other known vendor in the black) making money outside of Apple?
3) Do you honestly think they are doing it by stuffing a channel quarter after quarter with an increasingly high number of units? Or by having nearly all their devices returned? Or by making profits on cheap dumb phones? I sure hope not! The only logical and rational answer is they are making money on their premium handsets. All the number seem to fit so why assume their quarterly earnings in that department are falsified. Regardless of how you feel about Samsung and Google's blatant stealing of Apple's IP Samsung is making a killing off their premium smartphones running Android. If you have a different theory on why they are so successful or how everyone in the industry believes their earnings reports then by all means present it but lopsided conspiracy theories are doing no one any good.
I'm not going to do a Google search for your lazy ass. You can do that yourself and every single hit will show you the same thing. It's more than a 3 to 1 margin in favor of Android devices now. I don't need to post links for common knowledge... Well, common to anyone with an IQ above room temp I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
The implication here is that people can't change their IP, which is fallacy.
Oh, to clarify, right now I'm staying out of this. Just correcting a point.
Staying out in the sense that I'm not judging that. I WILL say to knock it off, though. Go ahead and insult each other all you want in PMs (and then… report the respective PMs because we don't want insults here at all…), but let's end it in this thread now, please.
Glad to hear things are changing.
I have a bunch of Apple products and when it comes to PC's, only a Mac will do for me. But that's an opinion formed after nearly 3 decades of pc use. When it comes to mobile electronics, think for yourself. Don't believe the propoganda. If that means an iDevice, fine. But don't try to make it seem as though it is the only option for everyone or that other companies aren't successful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Now, considering that the SIII has such a large screen and a quad core processor as well as being open and all the fandroids are so eager to point out that those are life and death features that no phone could possilby do without, how do you explain those figures?
Some SIII's have dual core processors.
Nope, no fragmentation here, nosiree Bob.
Whoa, wh… "some"?
Are they called the same model? Are people aware of these differences?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) I never said anything about Samsung's SEC filings. I used SEC filings and quarterly reports as examples for legal documents I'll believe. That's what the any is in any legal documents. If there is reason to challenge Samsung (or Apple's or anyone else's) reports I will, otherwise I'll take it as canon.
Then, all I am saying is that, unlike Apple, there are no SEC filing from Samsung that tell us how many handsets they sell and at what average price. Without that info, I don't what their market share it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
2) Do you den that Samsung is highly profitable in the handset market? Do you deny that Samsung is one of about two vendors (I think HTC is the only other known vendor in the black) making money outside of Apple?
"Highly" profitable? What you mean by "highly"? As profitable as Apple? >0? If the former, no. If the latter, yes. As to whether they only one of a couple of vendors, I don't know. Let's stipulate they are profitable. So what? What does that tell you about whether they sold 6 million SIIIs or not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
3) Do you honestly think they are doing it by stuffing a channel quarter after quarter with an increasingly high number of units? Or by having nearly all their devices returned? Or by making profits on cheap dumb phones?
Again, I don't know. Nobody does. But I can guess, like all the fandroids do: their ASP is quite low, as is their profits. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that it does not cover its cost of capital. I can't prove that, but no one else can prove the opposite either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
All the number seem to fit so why assume their quarterly earnings in that department are falsified. Regardless of how you feel about Samsung and Google's blatant stealing of Apple's IP Samsung is making a killing off their premium smartphones running Android. If you have a different theory on why they are so successful or how everyone in the industry believes their earnings reports then by all means present it but lopsided conspiracy theories are doing no one any good.
You really need to get a grip here. I have never claimed that Samsung is 'stealing' Apple's IP. You probably are confusing your own viewpoints on that issue with mine. I am still going with the flow on the judgments that are slowly piling up, and I'll form a view on that some day. But I don't have one (and have never claimed one).
Conspiracy theories? Please. There is no conspiracy. I am guessing that their net sales are probably not as good as everyone claims, which is likely the main reason they are not reporting actual numbers. They've got themselves in a bit of a bind, possibly. That is not to say they don't sell lots, or that they don't sell more than Apple does. They may. Or may not. I know I am sounding repetitive here, but all I am saying is that I have no clue, nor do you. If you want to keep operating on the premise that they sell a lot, and are highly profitable -- which, I also keep saying, if true, that's wonderful -- that's totally fine. But I like to deal with facts, that's all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac.World
I guess common sense isn't enough? Apparently, you'd also need proof to show that Windows machines out number Mac's?
I'm not going to do a Google search for your lazy ass. You can do that yourself and every single hit will show you the same thing. It's more than a 3 to 1 margin in favor of Android devices now. I don't need to post links for common knowledge... Well, common to anyone with an IQ above room temp I guess.
You are welcome to your "common sense." I like audited numbers.
If internet 'hits' were facts, Elvis would be living next door to me, and Michael Jackson would be dating him.
I don't doubt that it's popular and will sell millons.
However, I have to question the sanity of a purchasing decision by someone whose main criterion is that they hate the competition. It must be really sad to be an Android fan and have no other reason to by your phone than "I hate Apple".
You might ask HP about that wrt the Touchpad.
Or maybe RIM wrt their tablet (whatever the heck it was called - I can't keep all the 'iPad killers' straight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Whoa, wh… "some"?
Are they called the same model? Are people aware of these differences?
Here they are:-
http://www.gsmarena.com/results.php3?sQuickSearch=yes&sName=Galaxy+S+III
i9300, T999, I535, I747
Billions a quarter falls into my "highly" category.
Whether Apple can prove it in a court of law is a different matter than if they have actually done it. I look at many of Samsung's products and there is no shadow of a doubt that their changes in design are a direct result from copying Apple.
Samsung is highly profitable in the handset market. Even pro Apple sites like Daring Fireball and Asymco have stated it. Just because you can't get an exact number on one metric doesn't mean general figures and trends can't be deduced. I'm not sure why you are so anti-Samsung here. You're usually more objective, yet i don't once recall you claiming that we can't know if the iPhone 4S is successful because Apple doesn't break out iPhone model numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You have to love GoogleGuy math.
Let's assume that the iPhone sales were evenly divided between 3S, 4 and 4S. That means nearly 12 M of each - so each of them outsold the Galaxy SIII by two to one. Of course, it wasn't evenly split and the 4S outsold the other two by a large margin, so the difference between the 4S and the SIII was even greater.
Let's put it into perspective. The iPhone 4S sold 4 M units in its first weekend - and virtually every one ended up in customers' hands since they were in short supply. The SIII sold 6.5 M units in the first 2 months - and some of those (I don't know how large or small the number is) were in the channel.
Now, considering that the SIII has such a large screen and a quad core processor as well as being open and all the fandroids are so eager to point out that those are life and death features that no phone could possilby do without, how do you explain those figures?
Apparently you are the one in need a basic math lesson, so let me offer a helping hand.
First I will correct the odd way in which you calculate duration. When the S3 went on sale May 29th, and the quarter ended June 30th, that comes out to a duration of 33 days. 33 days does NOT equal "2 months" by any stretch of the imagination.
Second, lets correct the way in which you calculate rate and time. At 33 days, and 6.5M units, the S3 was shipping at an average rate of almost 200k phones per day during a PARTIAL release. Samsung would have shipped almost 18M S3 units at this rate if it had been available for the entire quarter (91*200k). Heck, this is the case without even taking into account the fact that it is just now being released into one of the largest consumer markets, the US!
Third, lets correct the way in which you calculate channel inventory. When a company is NOT able to keep up with demand, as is the case with the S3, this means that shipped units go straight to the consumer. Do you really think that the US market has been delayed with excess inventory in the channel? The correct answer is NO.
My point was.... every quarter Samsung produces new phones. If there were millions of unsold phones sitting around in carrier stores... the stores wouldn't order any more from Samsung. It's like that in every retail business. Samsung keeps "shipping" the phones to stores... so I tend to believe they are also "selling" those phones to consumers. Have you ever seen a Samsung phone out on the street? I've seen plenty.
That's why I have a hard time believing this notion of "Samsung ships but never sells..."
And it's also hard to believe that a brand new flagship phone like the GSIII is having difficulty being sold.
Isn't Samsung a Korean company? Maybe they don't have to report that stuff.
Why doesn't Amazon provide Kindle sales numbers? They're a US company. Can the SEC sue Amazon for not providing numbers?
Maybe Samsung... like Amazon... is afraid to publish those results?
I know you like audited numbers... but Samsung does not provide end-user sales.
That's neither good nor bad... it's just what they do.
We must rely on 3rd party analysts... and they all say Samsung is selling very well. So..... yeah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip
I'm smart enough to know that a company doesn't produce a bunch of products if they don't plan on selling them...
That applies to every company.
I don't need a list with the names and addresses of every person on the planet who bought a Samsung phone over the last 90 days.
But you can go on and believe that Samsung is outright lying with everything they say... or that they produce a bunch of phones with no intention to sell and instead shove them in a warehouse somewhere...
We're talking about billions of dollars in inventory here... don't be a fool :-)
Of course they plan on selling them... but the corpses of dead gadgets litter the landscape. Xoom, Touchpad, Playbook, Galaxy Tab v1.
... and I would never ever put it past Samsung to inflate its numbers.
Haha, true. The tablet market is a hard nut to crack.
Smartphones, however, are pretty safe bet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
It must be really sad to be an Android fan and have no other reason to by your phone than "I hate Apple".
...and love TouchWiz, apparently.