Samsung undoubtedly had a good quarter, but the numbers are slightly misleading. Every company other than Apple reports units shipped as opposed to units sold. Apple reports units sold. Inevitably Samsung has millions of units sitting in stores or in transit that are counted towards its sales figures. If Apple used the same counting method, it would undoubtedly have millions more units as well (at least in transit).
Samsung is beating up Apple mostly in emerging markets like China where it is selling devices on the world's largest carrier, but Apple is not. Apple will likely address this by bringing out a less expensive iPhone (perhaps just for those markets).
The shipped/sold debate is kind of foolish when we're talking about a difference of 80 million handsets between Samsung and Apple. No matter how you looks at the numbers Samsun SOLD millions more than Apple.
Even if as much as 30% of their shipped phones are sitting in inventory they still would have beat Apple in smartphone sales.
Apple didn't have a "bad" quarter, but it was weaker than many expected. I do find it interesting how well the iPhone 4 sold this holiday quarter. The demand for cheaper handsets seems to be strong not only in the "3rd world" but also here in the US as well.
I'm wondering if some of that demand was created by the quality of the iPhone 4... and the 4S.
When good enough is actually damn fine... then it'll do.
Funny how copying Apple's devices and strategy shows that the strategy is the most successful one after all.
I do think that Samsung was smart to switch to using a primary name ("Galaxy") that could stick in people's minds, just as "iPhone" does.
Likewise, I think that Apple was smart to use their last two models as lower priced come-ons to gain new users, just as Samsung has always had lower priced phones for that purpose.
Apple has also switched to making multiple submodels with different radio bands to get into more markets (which must be driving them crazy from the standpoint of mass production... they can no longer make just a single CDMA and/or GSM model).
Both companies are feeling out the best methods to get sales.
Samsung undoubtedly had a good quarter, but the numbers are slightly misleading. Every company other than Apple reports units shipped as opposed to units sold. Apple reports units sold. Inevitably Samsung has millions of units sitting in stores or in transit that are counted towards its sales figures. If Apple used the same counting method, it would undoubtedly have millions more units as well (at least in transit).
True, only Apple talks openly about "channel" numbers. But if Samsung has "millions" in "transit", either they will sell them very soon (which is still impressive) or they will have to do a massive write-down. We have not seen that yet. Furthermore, their profits were pretty impressive too, even while sitting on "millions" of shipped and unsold phones?
As much as we all enjoy seeing Apple triumph, at what time will you concede that Samsung is doing a bang-up job of marketing and selling?
Now, if the numbers are only "slightly" misleading, then the rest of your rant is really immaterial, isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Samsung is beating up Apple mostly in emerging markets like China where it is selling devices on the world's largest carrier, but Apple is not. Apple will likely address this by bringing out a less expensive iPhone (perhaps just for those markets).
Where is the proof that Samsung is beating up Apple mostly in emerging markets? BTW, China is not an emerging market anymore. And Apple is selling in China. Just not as fast as other companies.
I do think that Samsung was smart to switch to using a primary name ("Galaxy") that could stick in people's minds, just as "iPhone" does.
This is an important observation, IMO. Early on, carriers (particularly Verizon) controlled naming of the phones. There were Droids from HTC and Motorola, with such a naming scheme serving to build the Verizon brand while obscuring the identities of HTC and Motorola. Somehow, Samsung has been able to avoid this and has been allowed instead to build the Galaxy brand. The current landscape is in part due to this.
I'm wondering if some of that demand was created by the quality of the iPhone 4... and the 4S.
When good enough is actually damn fine... then it'll do.
Maybe.
Maybe, not only are iP4 and iP4S good enough, they look like the damn fine iP5 at a glance. As much as I personally enjoy fondling my iPhone 5, not everyone is willing to pay more for that sensual pleasure. And when you slap on a case, the marvelous thinness and weightlessness are well hidden.
To an extent, the makeover that is iPhone 5 is most obvious to the connoisseurs of the 4. It's akin to Ferrari releasing a "completely" redesigned Testarossa in 2013. To many eyes, it will look like the same Ferrari. They will buy the 2005 version and still partake in the same joy that is bestowed on all iPhone owners.
Samsung is beating up Apple mostly in emerging markets like China where it is selling devices on the world's largest carrier, but Apple is not. Apple will likely address this by bringing out a less expensive iPhone (perhaps just for those markets).
Apparently Samsung might have future problems in China as well. The trend is reportedly towards homegrown phones:
Quote:
It’s expected that 86 percent of fourth quarter sales in China will be Android phones (with 50.8 million Androids sold in Q4). For the year as a whole, that amounts to an impressive 157 million Android smartphones sold in China during the whole year, which is up 260 percent from a year ago.
The new report also signals a shift towards Chinese consumers favoring domestic smartphone brands, with local brands expected to account for 61 percent of China’s smartphone market in 2012 led by Lenovo. That syncs with Canalys data we saw last month which pointed out that China’s top five smartphone brands are, in descending order, Samsung, Lenovo, CoolPad, Huawei, and ZTE. That’s very bad news for the once-beloved HTC; as for other overseas phone-makers, only Samsung and Apple appear to be making a strong showing this year.
This isn't hard to figure out. Let's look at the sales over the past six months, to get an up to date estimate of what customers are currently buying.
Samsung sold ~116 million smartphones during that time period (3Q and 4Q).
The "100 million Galaxy S total" consists of 25 million S, 40 million S2 and 41 million S3.
The S3 was introduced at the beginning of June, but didn't hit the mass markets until the end of July. We'll cut that in half, and say it started mid-year. Therefore about 41 million S3s sold out of 116 million total smartphones, so...
~35% of Samsung's smartphone sales over the past six months were GS3 alone.
Throw in just three months of the Galaxy Note 2, which sold 5 million in 60 days and was averaging 2 million a month, and we get that about 41% of all their smartphones sold in the second half of 2012 were the newest high end units (Galaxy S3 and Note 2).
This leaves out any second half sales of older S2 and Note models, which would increase the high end percentage.
Your numbers are so far off it's not even funny. GS3 had already hit 10 million sales by Mid July (according to Samsung). They also hit 20 million by Sept 6th and 30 million by Nov 2nd. The GS3 has been pretty consistently selling at 5 million units per month since it was released at the end of May (and there was an initial surge of buyers which is why they were able to hit 10 million in mid July).
Samsung sold 56.3 million phones in Q3 compared to about 15 million GS3's. My math puts that at around 26%, not the inflated 35% you're claiming. Samsung moveD anywhere from 60-67 million phones in Q4, so we'll go with the lower figure of 60 million. 41 million phones minus the 30 million on Nov 2nd gives us 11 million phones for Nov-Dec, so Samsung probably moveD 16-17 million GS3's in Q4, or slightly higher than their average of 5 million/month. 17 million out of 60 million gives us 28% (if we err in Samsung's favor on both sides). And we don't even know for sure if that 41 million GS3's were in Q4 or later since Samsung announced on Jan 14th, and that could have included those 2 extra weeks.
Bottom line is Samsung sells a LOT more cheap phones than they do GS3's or Notes. This is why their margins are so low (17.4%). Samsung makes very good margins on the GS3 and Note (just like Apple does on their iPhones) but makes slim margins and low end devices (like everyone else). The margin tells the whole story of just what Samsungs mix is of low-end to high-end phones really is.
If KD's provided numbers are correct, than Samsung only went from 56 to 60 million phones in the holiday quarter. That's quite pathetic to only increase sales by less than 8% for a holiday quarter.
Your numbers are so far off it's not even funny. GS3 had already hit 10 million sales by Mid July (according to Samsung). They also hit 20 million by Sept 6th and 30 million by Nov 2nd. The GS3 has been pretty consistently selling at 5 million units per month since it was released at the end of May (and there was an initial surge of buyers which is why they were able to hit 10 million in mid July).
Thank you. I appreciate your checking.
I took that into account. The GS3 was production constrained that first June. It had a lot of preorders, but shipments didn't start in earnest until July, and preorders don't count towards quarterly sales numbers with either Apple or Samsung. With Apple, the unit has to ship to count as a sale (or delivered if going direct to a consumer), and with Samsung, the unit has to be delivered to the buyer, retail or consumer.
However, even if we used your lowest GS3 numbers, once we add back the Note 2 sales (~7 million in 4Q), those two high end devices alone total at least 35 - 40% for the last quarter of 2012.
All that also still leaves out all the mid-range phones, which are not bad at all.. they're basically like a 3GS or better. They probably add another 30%, but I'll have to find some numbers. The remainder are the actual low end devices that people keep bringing up. A lot, but not likely the majority.
The upshot is, it appears that at least half of Samsung's sales are NOT low end phones, even if they're also not the highest end phones with large screens and Wacom pen technology.
Bottom line is Samsung sells a LOT more cheap phones than they do GS3's or Notes. This is why their margins are so low (17.4%). Samsung makes very good margins on the GS3 and Note (just like Apple does on their iPhones) but makes slim margins and low end devices (like everyone else). The margin tells the whole story of just what Samsungs mix is of low-end to high-end phones really is.
Heh. Samsung wishes they could make as high margins on their top phones like Apple does, but they average a lot lower ASP.
Reports show that yes, they do sell a lot of low end phones at $80-145 (especially in economically constrained countries like Greece and India). Those have very low margins, under 10%. They also sell a lot of mid-level $150-$250 phones with really nice specs, and better margins.
The shipped/sold debate is kind of foolish when we're talking about a difference of 80 million handsets between Samsung and Apple. No matter how you looks at the numbers Samsun SOLD millions more than Apple.
Even if as much as 30% of their shipped phones are sitting in inventory they still would have beat Apple in smartphone sales.
It's not surprising when they have 20 different models ranging from cheap plastic outdated crap to the GS3. But in the "premium" smartphones, you know the segment where the profits come from, Apple rules the roost. Hence its profit share.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Samsung undoubtedly had a good quarter, but the numbers are slightly misleading. Every company other than Apple reports units shipped as opposed to units sold. Apple reports units sold. Inevitably Samsung has millions of units sitting in stores or in transit that are counted towards its sales figures. If Apple used the same counting method, it would undoubtedly have millions more units as well (at least in transit).
Samsung is beating up Apple mostly in emerging markets like China where it is selling devices on the world's largest carrier, but Apple is not. Apple will likely address this by bringing out a less expensive iPhone (perhaps just for those markets).
The shipped/sold debate is kind of foolish when we're talking about a difference of 80 million handsets between Samsung and Apple. No matter how you looks at the numbers Samsun SOLD millions more than Apple.
Even if as much as 30% of their shipped phones are sitting in inventory they still would have beat Apple in smartphone sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook
Apple didn't have a "bad" quarter, but it was weaker than many expected. I do find it interesting how well the iPhone 4 sold this holiday quarter. The demand for cheaper handsets seems to be strong not only in the "3rd world" but also here in the US as well.
I'm wondering if some of that demand was created by the quality of the iPhone 4... and the 4S.
When good enough is actually damn fine... then it'll do.
Maybe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
I'm wondering if some of that demand was created by the quality of the iPhone 4... and the 4S.
When good enough is actually damn fine... then it'll do.
Maybe.
I agree.
The 4 trumps every other "free" phone available by a mile.
Amazing build quality, beautiful all glass design, easy to use fast and smooth OS...
Plus it still looks fresh and modern.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Funny how copying Apple's devices and strategy shows that the strategy is the most successful one after all.
I do think that Samsung was smart to switch to using a primary name ("Galaxy") that could stick in people's minds, just as "iPhone" does.
Likewise, I think that Apple was smart to use their last two models as lower priced come-ons to gain new users, just as Samsung has always had lower priced phones for that purpose.
Apple has also switched to making multiple submodels with different radio bands to get into more markets (which must be driving them crazy from the standpoint of mass production... they can no longer make just a single CDMA and/or GSM model).
Both companies are feeling out the best methods to get sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Samsung undoubtedly had a good quarter, but the numbers are slightly misleading. Every company other than Apple reports units shipped as opposed to units sold. Apple reports units sold. Inevitably Samsung has millions of units sitting in stores or in transit that are counted towards its sales figures. If Apple used the same counting method, it would undoubtedly have millions more units as well (at least in transit).
True, only Apple talks openly about "channel" numbers. But if Samsung has "millions" in "transit", either they will sell them very soon (which is still impressive) or they will have to do a massive write-down. We have not seen that yet. Furthermore, their profits were pretty impressive too, even while sitting on "millions" of shipped and unsold phones?
As much as we all enjoy seeing Apple triumph, at what time will you concede that Samsung is doing a bang-up job of marketing and selling?
Now, if the numbers are only "slightly" misleading, then the rest of your rant is really immaterial, isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Samsung is beating up Apple mostly in emerging markets like China where it is selling devices on the world's largest carrier, but Apple is not. Apple will likely address this by bringing out a less expensive iPhone (perhaps just for those markets).
Where is the proof that Samsung is beating up Apple mostly in emerging markets? BTW, China is not an emerging market anymore. And Apple is selling in China. Just not as fast as other companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
I do think that Samsung was smart to switch to using a primary name ("Galaxy") that could stick in people's minds, just as "iPhone" does.
This is an important observation, IMO. Early on, carriers (particularly Verizon) controlled naming of the phones. There were Droids from HTC and Motorola, with such a naming scheme serving to build the Verizon brand while obscuring the identities of HTC and Motorola. Somehow, Samsung has been able to avoid this and has been allowed instead to build the Galaxy brand. The current landscape is in part due to this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
I'm wondering if some of that demand was created by the quality of the iPhone 4... and the 4S.
When good enough is actually damn fine... then it'll do.
Maybe.
Maybe, not only are iP4 and iP4S good enough, they look like the damn fine iP5 at a glance. As much as I personally enjoy fondling my iPhone 5, not everyone is willing to pay more for that sensual pleasure. And when you slap on a case, the marvelous thinness and weightlessness are well hidden.
To an extent, the makeover that is iPhone 5 is most obvious to the connoisseurs of the 4. It's akin to Ferrari releasing a "completely" redesigned Testarossa in 2013. To many eyes, it will look like the same Ferrari. They will buy the 2005 version and still partake in the same joy that is bestowed on all iPhone owners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Samsung is beating up Apple mostly in emerging markets like China where it is selling devices on the world's largest carrier, but Apple is not. Apple will likely address this by bringing out a less expensive iPhone (perhaps just for those markets).
Apparently Samsung might have future problems in China as well. The trend is reportedly towards homegrown phones:
Quote:
It’s expected that 86 percent of fourth quarter sales in China will be Android phones (with 50.8 million Androids sold in Q4). For the year as a whole, that amounts to an impressive 157 million Android smartphones sold in China during the whole year, which is up 260 percent from a year ago.
The new report also signals a shift towards Chinese consumers favoring domestic smartphone brands, with local brands expected to account for 61 percent of China’s smartphone market in 2012 led by Lenovo. That syncs with Canalys data we saw last month which pointed out that China’s top five smartphone brands are, in descending order, Samsung, Lenovo, CoolPad, Huawei, and ZTE. That’s very bad news for the once-beloved HTC; as for other overseas phone-makers, only Samsung and Apple appear to be making a strong showing this year.
- China, smartphones
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
This isn't hard to figure out. Let's look at the sales over the past six months, to get an up to date estimate of what customers are currently buying.
Samsung sold ~116 million smartphones during that time period (3Q and 4Q).
The "100 million Galaxy S total" consists of 25 million S, 40 million S2 and 41 million S3.
The S3 was introduced at the beginning of June, but didn't hit the mass markets until the end of July. We'll cut that in half, and say it started mid-year. Therefore about 41 million S3s sold out of 116 million total smartphones, so...
~35% of Samsung's smartphone sales over the past six months were GS3 alone.
Throw in just three months of the Galaxy Note 2, which sold 5 million in 60 days and was averaging 2 million a month, and we get that about 41% of all their smartphones sold in the second half of 2012 were the newest high end units (Galaxy S3 and Note 2).
This leaves out any second half sales of older S2 and Note models, which would increase the high end percentage.
Your numbers are so far off it's not even funny. GS3 had already hit 10 million sales by Mid July (according to Samsung). They also hit 20 million by Sept 6th and 30 million by Nov 2nd. The GS3 has been pretty consistently selling at 5 million units per month since it was released at the end of May (and there was an initial surge of buyers which is why they were able to hit 10 million in mid July).
Samsung sold 56.3 million phones in Q3 compared to about 15 million GS3's. My math puts that at around 26%, not the inflated 35% you're claiming. Samsung moveD anywhere from 60-67 million phones in Q4, so we'll go with the lower figure of 60 million. 41 million phones minus the 30 million on Nov 2nd gives us 11 million phones for Nov-Dec, so Samsung probably moveD 16-17 million GS3's in Q4, or slightly higher than their average of 5 million/month. 17 million out of 60 million gives us 28% (if we err in Samsung's favor on both sides). And we don't even know for sure if that 41 million GS3's were in Q4 or later since Samsung announced on Jan 14th, and that could have included those 2 extra weeks.
Bottom line is Samsung sells a LOT more cheap phones than they do GS3's or Notes. This is why their margins are so low (17.4%). Samsung makes very good margins on the GS3 and Note (just like Apple does on their iPhones) but makes slim margins and low end devices (like everyone else). The margin tells the whole story of just what Samsungs mix is of low-end to high-end phones really is.
It has only above $448 for like a year. The previous 30 years it was lower than this "record low". Except so far it isn't doing this
One more thing....
If KD's provided numbers are correct, than Samsung only went from 56 to 60 million phones in the holiday quarter. That's quite pathetic to only increase sales by less than 8% for a holiday quarter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Your numbers are so far off it's not even funny. GS3 had already hit 10 million sales by Mid July (according to Samsung). They also hit 20 million by Sept 6th and 30 million by Nov 2nd. The GS3 has been pretty consistently selling at 5 million units per month since it was released at the end of May (and there was an initial surge of buyers which is why they were able to hit 10 million in mid July).
Thank you. I appreciate your checking.
I took that into account. The GS3 was production constrained that first June. It had a lot of preorders, but shipments didn't start in earnest until July, and preorders don't count towards quarterly sales numbers with either Apple or Samsung. With Apple, the unit has to ship to count as a sale (or delivered if going direct to a consumer), and with Samsung, the unit has to be delivered to the buyer, retail or consumer.
However, even if we used your lowest GS3 numbers, once we add back the Note 2 sales (~7 million in 4Q), those two high end devices alone total at least 35 - 40% for the last quarter of 2012.
All that also still leaves out all the mid-range phones, which are not bad at all.. they're basically like a 3GS or better. They probably add another 30%, but I'll have to find some numbers. The remainder are the actual low end devices that people keep bringing up. A lot, but not likely the majority.
The upshot is, it appears that at least half of Samsung's sales are NOT low end phones, even if they're also not the highest end phones with large screens and Wacom pen technology.
Bottom line is Samsung sells a LOT more cheap phones than they do GS3's or Notes. This is why their margins are so low (17.4%). Samsung makes very good margins on the GS3 and Note (just like Apple does on their iPhones) but makes slim margins and low end devices (like everyone else). The margin tells the whole story of just what Samsungs mix is of low-end to high-end phones really is.
Heh. Samsung wishes they could make as high margins on their top phones like Apple does, but they average a lot lower ASP.
Reports show that yes, they do sell a lot of low end phones at $80-145 (especially in economically constrained countries like Greece and India). Those have very low margins, under 10%. They also sell a lot of mid-level $150-$250 phones with really nice specs, and better margins.
It's not surprising when they have 20 different models ranging from cheap plastic outdated crap to the GS3. But in the "premium" smartphones, you know the segment where the profits come from, Apple rules the roost. Hence its profit share.