So if you were to guess, how many retailers, service providers and/or distributors over dozens of countries would have to coordinate and report their current inventory to each applicable manufacturer (Samsung, Huawai, etc.) as of a specific day, who would than report those to Google combined with their shipped numbers for a few hundred unique devices at that same specific point in time to satisfy your curiosity? 5 thousand? 10 thousand? More? And they go to that effort why?
Either you're not serious or you're simply not thinking today IMO. Why isn't a report of unique device activations plenty close, particularly since you've said you don't really care if every device is counted as long as the biggest 4 or 5 report channel numbers.
<p id="user_yui_3_7_3_1_1359922875042_910" style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18.1875px;">EDIT: Here's the list of Samsung authorized resellers.. . in just the US!:</p>
Who cares about the silly links you keep posting, pretending to be serious.
If you don't know what your channel inventory is doing, you have no clue about our ability to sell your products. You don't know how to price, how to promote, how to advertise, how to manage your mix..... I could go on with such Business 101 stuff that perhaps eludes you.
There are only two possibilities: Samsung is a naive, unsophisticated company when it comes to marketing, distribution, and data collection/management, or they're embarrassed to admit facts.
Who cares about the silly links you keep posting, pretending to be serious.
If you don't know what your channel inventory is doing, you have no clue about our ability to sell your products. You don't know how to price, how to promote, how to advertise, how to manage your mix..... I could go on with such Business 101 stuff that perhaps eludes you.
There are only two possibilities: Samsung is a naive, unsophisticated company when it comes to marketing, distribution, and data collection/management, or they're embarrassed to admit facts.
So you're only curious about Samsung sales and inventory then, but OK with Google activation numbers being an accurate picture of the Android market. That's different.
There's a few reasons Samsung would choose be less specific than you like. You've named just two possibilities. The one they mentioned when they stopped doing so is that because of Apple lawsuits they were no longer going to offer specific numbers. Valid reason? Dunno.
It could instead be for competitive reasons, the same as Apple's reason to decline specifics on model sales. Maybe they're just lying and there really isn't much profit in their smartphone business and they'll eventually be caught by their stockholders. Or maybe they really do sell more smartphones than Apple whether you want to believe it or not.
Are their stockholders demanding more detail? If not then what would be the benefit to Samsung in satisfying your curiosity? I can't think of any.
1. Of course you would think so. Lol.
2. An assertion is not a fact.
3. Perhaps you should understand the phrase 'channel inventory', what the article says about that, and might wonder why no one other than Apple provides that information.
You're just sounding like a paid shill at this point. That's your wont, but I wish you'd stop polluting these boards.
1. Please explain? And why you are at it, why don't you answer the question
2. Again, please explain. And while you are at it please list all reasons why 100% of Android phones are not smartphones
3. I understand these concepts 100%. Do you understand Apples financial document?
Paid shill? What does that mean? Is that a new AI term to use when you can't think of a new arguement? Have you used the word troll too much today that you are now moving to shill? But by your own definition, do you not sound like a "paid shill"?
.... a problem which would be solved in one stroke if Android manufacturers put out sales and channel inventory numbers!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
From all 500+ licensed Android product manufacturers??
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Only in your peculiar way of thinking would you not see that the top four or five -- Samsung, LG, HTC, Huawei, Amazon -- would suffice.
Heck, I'd take just Samsung's numbers, since they're supposedly the most successful according to all sorts of guesstimates!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
So if you were to guess, how many retailers, service providers and/or distributors over dozens of countries would have to coordinate and report their current inventory to each applicable manufacturer (Samsung, Huawai, etc.) as of a specific day, who would than report those to Google combined with their shipped numbers for a few hundred unique devices at that same specific point in time to satisfy your curiosity? 5 thousand? 10 thousand? More? And they go to that effort why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
There are only two possibilities: Samsung is a naive, unsophisticated company when it comes to marketing, distribution, and data collection/management, or they're embarrassed to admit facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
So you're only curious about Samsung sales and inventory then, but OK with Google activation numbers being an accurate picture of the Android market. That's different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
You ran out of arguments, so now you're simply making up stuff? That's a new low, even for you. Pathetic.
Google's 'activation' numbers are a frickin' joke.
No now you've come full circle and gone back to your problem being Google activation numbers.
So why all the noise about you'd be happy with the numbers if just four or five Android manufacturers would publish sales and channel inventory numbers, or even if just Samsung would? And you want to say I'm the one making stuff up. . .
So what would really be enough to prove to you Google's activation numbers either do or don't paint a fairly accurate picture of the Android market so far? Apparently it's not only the top four or five or "even just Samsung" reporting sales and channel. So it must be just as I originally posted. You'd only be satisfied (maybe) if over over 500 manufacturers were to coordinate sales and inventory numbers across 10's of thousands of individual re-sellers for a snapshot of the market as of some unified date. Good luck with that.
There's a few reasons Samsung would choose be less specific than you like. You've named just two possibilities. The one they mentioned when they stopped doing so is that because of Apple lawsuits they were no longer going to offer specific numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Cite?
Absolutely. From July 2011 when they stopped reporting phone numbers.
SEOUL—Samsung Electronics Co. on Friday said it would stop disclosing sales figures and forecasts for its mobile phones and tablet computers, a step it attributed to business risks and that analysts said was probably due to its continuing legal battle with Apple Inc.
Samsung, the world's largest technology manufacturer by sales, has long been one of the most guarded companies in the electronics industry. The disclosure of cellphone shipments had been one of the rare morsels of product data that Samsung provided with its quarterly earnings announcements.
But when the company released second-quarter results Friday, the cellphone data were missing. And in a conference call with analysts, executives announced a "new information policy" that would reveal less data about cellphones and tablet computers.
"As competition intensifies, there are increased risks that the information we provide may adversely affect our own businesses," Robert Yi, Samsung's chief of investor relations, said on the call. He declined a request for further explanation.
<p style="margin-right:8px;margin-bottom:1em;margin-left:8px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:1.5em;line-height:1.5em;">[SIZE=16px]SEOUL—Samsung Electronics Co. on Friday said it would stop disclosing sales figures and forecasts for its mobile phones and tablet computers, a step it attributed to business risks and that analysts said was probably due to its continuing legal battle with Apple Inc.[/SIZE]</p>
Your interpretation is wrong. Samsung did not attribute it to the Apple lawsuit as you claimed. Samsung attributed it to 'business risks'. It was the analysts who said it was due to the lawsuit - and no one in their right mind puts much faith in their assertions.
Very true. But the difference is... Apple does give out official numbers... for all their phones (not just a certain subset of phones)... every single quarter. Sure they're not broken down by individual model... but some could argue that the numbers for "the iPhone" are good enough. Apple has a very lean product line... only offering 3 models from mid to high-end.
Samsung, on the other hand, is a full-line smartphone manufacturer. They sell budget phones all the way up to high-end. Yet all we get from Samsung are a few "milestones" every so often about their flagship phones. Their only official statement on the matter is a cumulative total of one series of phones that dates back to 2010. It makes a great headline... but offers no information about the strength of their product line.
I understand the need for corporate secrecy... but I'd like some transparency.
Samsung's announcement of 100 million Galaxy S over 30 months is nice... but what about the other phones Samsung sold over the last 30 months? Or just the last 3 months?
Samsung's recent report also says that the Galaxy SIII sold 40 million in 7 months... with average daily sales of about 190,000 units.
That would be 18 million Galaxy SIII in a quarter... while analysts are pegging Samsung at 60 million total smartphones for the quarter.
So what were the other 42 million Samsung smartphones?
Galaxy SIII and Galaxy Note II might make up 1/3 of Samsung's sales... but what on Earth makes up the rest? Are they not proud of those sales?
Agree. But more importantly, when Samsung was forced to release numbers in the trial, they turned out to be much lower than all the estimates that were flying around. I believe that the analysts consistently estimate on the high side.
Originally Posted by jragosta But more importantly, when Samsung was forced to release numbers in the trial, they turned out to be much lower than all the estimates that were flying around. I believe that the analysts consistently estimate on the high side.
"It should be noted that not all of Samsung's product lineup is represented in the figures, only those which are alleged as infringing Apple's patents."
The 21M number you toss around applied only to those specific handsets that Apple brought suit against. That was hardly the entire line of Samsung phones available for sale. You knew that, or at least should have if you read the article..
Your interpretation is wrong. Samsung did not attribute it to the Apple lawsuit as you claimed. Samsung attributed it to 'business risks'. It was the analysts who said it was due to the lawsuit - and no one in their right mind puts much faith in their assertions.
You're quite right, Samsung themselves did not blame it on Apple. It was business sources who came up with that association. No doubt they noted the fact Apple had filed suit their major US lawsuit citing Samsung smartphones and tablets just two months prior, during that specific Samsung quarter where the decision was made to no longer publish numbers. Probably just happenstance though, right?
No now you've come full circle and gone back to your problem being Google activation numbers.
So why all the noise about you'd be happy with the numbers if just four or five Android manufacturers would publish sales and channel inventory numbers, or even if just Samsung would? And you want to say I'm the one making stuff up. . .
So what would really be enough to prove to you Google's activation numbers either do or don't paint a fairly accurate picture of the Android market so far? Apparently it's not only the top four or five or "even just Samsung" reporting sales and channel. So it must be just as I originally posted. You'd only be satisfied (maybe) if over over 500 manufacturers were to coordinate sales and inventory numbers across 10's of thousands of individual re-sellers for a snapshot of the market as of some unified date. Good luck with that.
Heh heh. At this point, the wall I am sitting next to makes more sense than your incoherent ramblings.
Look, the point is simple. Samsung claims to sell a lot. The only 'evidence' we have for that are guesstimates put out by consulting firms. Data on collateral items such as profits and web visits, combined with lack of actual audited data on sales tells us that they're making some stuff up. Most likely, they're selling cheap stuff to Indians and Chinese. (There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.)
People like you have a tough time accepting these simple facts. So all you can do is dissemble, misrepresent, obfuscate, make feeble excuses, and when ll else fails, try to change the topic. Fail.
Heh heh. At this point, the wall I am sitting next to makes more sense than your incoherent ramblings.
Look, the point is simple. Samsung claims to sell a lot. The only 'evidence' we have for that are guesstimates put out by consulting firms. Data on collateral items such as profits and web visits, combined with lack of actual audited data on sales tells us that they're making some stuff up. Most likely, they're selling cheap stuff to Indians and Chinese. (There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.)
People like you have a tough time accepting these simple facts. So all you can do is dissemble, misrepresent, obfuscate, make feeble excuses, and when ll else fails, try to change the topic. Fail.
So now it's all back to just Samsung again and really not Google activation nuumbers?? Somewhere in there I'm sure you think you've proven something, or found some easy solution to determining Android market share. I don't think you really did.
I think we're at the end of any beneficial back and forth on the suggestion you originally made: "a problem which would be solved in one stroke if Android manufacturers put out sales and channel inventory numbers". By now everyone is getting confused.
You're quite right, Samsung themselves did not blame it on Apple. It was business sources who came up with that association. No doubt they noted the fact Apple had filed suit their major US lawsuit citing Samsung smartphones and tablets just two months prior, during that specific Samsung quarter where the decision was made to no longer publish numbers. Probably just happenstance though, right?
As usual, when caught out, you dissemble, by talking about 'business associates' (um... these are analysts..... I wonder what kind of 'business associates' to Samsung they are) or 'happenstance' (yeah.... sure...must be true because Gatorguy said so....)
Just so people know, here's what you said: "There's a few reasons Samsung would choose be less specific than you like. You've named just two possibilities. The one they mentioned when they stopped doing so is that because of Apple lawsuits they were no longer going to offer specific numbers."
So now it's all back to just Samsung again and really not Google activation nuumbers?? <img alt="1confused.gif" id="user_yui_3_7_3_1_1359984479064_1213" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies/1confused.gif" style="line-height:1.231;" name="user_yui_3_7_3_1_1359984479064_1213">
Yes. It took a while to get through, but you got it! Clap clap.
As usual, when caught out, you dissemble, by talking about 'business associates' (um... these are analysts..... I wonder what kind of 'business associates' to Samsung they are) or 'happenstance' (yeah.... sure...must be true because Gatorguy said so....)
Just so people know, here's what you said: There's a few reasons Samsung would choose be less specific than you like. You've named just two possibilities. The one they mentioned when they stopped doing so is that because of Apple lawsuits they were no longer going to offer specific numbers. Valid reason? Dunno. It could instead be for competitive reasons, the same as Apple's reason to decline specifics on model sales. Maybe they're just lying and there really isn't much profit in their smartphone business and they'll eventually be caught by their stockholders. Or maybe they really do sell more smartphones than Apple whether you want to believe it or not.
Hmm, "as usual" you've misstated what I said (I hope we never tire of "as usual" as it's just so effective). I never mentioned "business associates" but no matter. Anyway, I added the rest of my quote that was inadvertently left out.
Hmm, "as usual" you've misstated what I said (I hope we never tire of "as usual" as it's just so effective<img alt="1biggrin.gif" id="user_yui_3_7_3_1_1359985411040_1357" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies/1biggrin.gif" style="line-height:1.231;" name="user_yui_3_7_3_1_1359985411040_1357">
<span style="line-height:1.231;">). I never mentioned "business associates" but no matter. Anyway, I added the rest of my quote that was inadvertently left out.</span>
Actually, I agree, you used the vacuous term 'business sources,' not 'business associates.' My apologies.
Incorrect JR. I already pointed out your error, but apparently it's not convenient to your argument so you've chosen to ignore it? http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/155747/apple-overtakes-samsung-as-top-u-s-mobile-phone-vendor-for-first-time-in-q4-2012#post_2269472
From the AI article itself that you linked: <span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18.1875px;">"It should be noted that not all of Samsung's product lineup is represented in the figures, only those which are alleged as infringing Apple's patents."</span>
The 21M number you toss around applied only to those specific handsets that Apple brought suit against. That was hardly the entire line of Samsung phones available for sale. You knew that, or at least should have if you read the article..
And, of course, you're ignoring the fact that almost all of Samsung's biggest sellers were included in Apple's lawsuit - certainly almost everything that could be called a Smartphone.
Even with a few minor handsets not included, how do you explain that the estimates were 35 M per year while the actual numbers were 10.5 M per year?
And, of course, you're ignoring the fact that almost all of Samsung's biggest sellers were included in Apple's lawsuit - certainly almost everything that could be called a Smartphone.
Even with a few minor handsets not included, how do you explain that the estimates were 35 M per year while the actual numbers were 10.5 M per year?
No, you're ignoring the fact it didn't prove what you say it did, even after being corrected about it more than once. It wasn't my claim to begin with (and where the heck is your 35M average per year figure coming from?)
Can we dispose of that little bit of JR FUD too now, throwing it in the same garbage bin as "all the Android feature phones being marketed and/or sold"?
Comments
If you don't know what your channel inventory is doing, you have no clue about our ability to sell your products. You don't know how to price, how to promote, how to advertise, how to manage your mix..... I could go on with such Business 101 stuff that perhaps eludes you.
There are only two possibilities: Samsung is a naive, unsophisticated company when it comes to marketing, distribution, and data collection/management, or they're embarrassed to admit facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Who cares about the silly links you keep posting, pretending to be serious.
If you don't know what your channel inventory is doing, you have no clue about our ability to sell your products. You don't know how to price, how to promote, how to advertise, how to manage your mix..... I could go on with such Business 101 stuff that perhaps eludes you.
There are only two possibilities: Samsung is a naive, unsophisticated company when it comes to marketing, distribution, and data collection/management, or they're embarrassed to admit facts.
So you're only curious about Samsung sales and inventory then, but OK with Google activation numbers being an accurate picture of the Android market. That's different.
There's a few reasons Samsung would choose be less specific than you like. You've named just two possibilities. The one they mentioned when they stopped doing so is that because of Apple lawsuits they were no longer going to offer specific numbers. Valid reason? Dunno.
It could instead be for competitive reasons, the same as Apple's reason to decline specifics on model sales. Maybe they're just lying and there really isn't much profit in their smartphone business and they'll eventually be caught by their stockholders. Or maybe they really do sell more smartphones than Apple whether you want to believe it or not.
Are their stockholders demanding more detail? If not then what would be the benefit to Samsung in satisfying your curiosity? I can't think of any.
You ran out of arguments, so now you're simply making up stuff? That's a new low, even for you. Pathetic.
Google's 'activation' numbers are a frickin' joke.
Cite?
1. Please explain? And why you are at it, why don't you answer the question
2. Again, please explain. And while you are at it please list all reasons why 100% of Android phones are not smartphones
3. I understand these concepts 100%. Do you understand Apples financial document?
Paid shill? What does that mean? Is that a new AI term to use when you can't think of a new arguement? Have you used the word troll too much today that you are now moving to shill? But by your own definition, do you not sound like a "paid shill"?
Please explain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
.... a problem which would be solved in one stroke if Android manufacturers put out sales and channel inventory numbers!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
From all 500+ licensed Android product manufacturers??
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Only in your peculiar way of thinking would you not see that the top four or five -- Samsung, LG, HTC, Huawei, Amazon -- would suffice.
Heck, I'd take just Samsung's numbers, since they're supposedly the most successful according to all sorts of guesstimates!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
So if you were to guess, how many retailers, service providers and/or distributors over dozens of countries would have to coordinate and report their current inventory to each applicable manufacturer (Samsung, Huawai, etc.) as of a specific day, who would than report those to Google combined with their shipped numbers for a few hundred unique devices at that same specific point in time to satisfy your curiosity? 5 thousand? 10 thousand? More? And they go to that effort why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
There are only two possibilities: Samsung is a naive, unsophisticated company when it comes to marketing, distribution, and data collection/management, or they're embarrassed to admit facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
So you're only curious about Samsung sales and inventory then, but OK with Google activation numbers being an accurate picture of the Android market. That's different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
You ran out of arguments, so now you're simply making up stuff? That's a new low, even for you. Pathetic.
Google's 'activation' numbers are a frickin' joke.
No now you've come full circle and gone back to your problem being Google activation numbers.
So why all the noise about you'd be happy with the numbers if just four or five Android manufacturers would publish sales and channel inventory numbers, or even if just Samsung would? And you want to say I'm the one making stuff up. . .
So what would really be enough to prove to you Google's activation numbers either do or don't paint a fairly accurate picture of the Android market so far? Apparently it's not only the top four or five or "even just Samsung" reporting sales and channel. So it must be just as I originally posted. You'd only be satisfied (maybe) if over over 500 manufacturers were to coordinate sales and inventory numbers across 10's of thousands of individual re-sellers for a snapshot of the market as of some unified date. Good luck with that.
Like I said the first time, easy-peesy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
There's a few reasons Samsung would choose be less specific than you like. You've named just two possibilities. The one they mentioned when they stopped doing so is that because of Apple lawsuits they were no longer going to offer specific numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Cite?
Absolutely. From July 2011 when they stopped reporting phone numbers.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904888304576475693866644746.html
SEOUL—Samsung Electronics Co. on Friday said it would stop disclosing sales figures and forecasts for its mobile phones and tablet computers, a step it attributed to business risks and that analysts said was probably due to its continuing legal battle with Apple Inc.
Samsung, the world's largest technology manufacturer by sales, has long been one of the most guarded companies in the electronics industry. The disclosure of cellphone shipments had been one of the rare morsels of product data that Samsung provided with its quarterly earnings announcements.
But when the company released second-quarter results Friday, the cellphone data were missing. And in a conference call with analysts, executives announced a "new information policy" that would reveal less data about cellphones and tablet computers.
"As competition intensifies, there are increased risks that the information we provide may adversely affect our own businesses," Robert Yi, Samsung's chief of investor relations, said on the call. He declined a request for further explanation.
Your interpretation is wrong. Samsung did not attribute it to the Apple lawsuit as you claimed. Samsung attributed it to 'business risks'. It was the analysts who said it was due to the lawsuit - and no one in their right mind puts much faith in their assertions.
Agree. But more importantly, when Samsung was forced to release numbers in the trial, they turned out to be much lower than all the estimates that were flying around. I believe that the analysts consistently estimate on the high side.
For example:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151852/court-docs-reveal-samsung-sold-21m-phones-1-4m-tablets-worth-8b-in-us-since-2010
At the time, estimates were that Samsung was selling 35 M smartphones per year. They actually sold 21 M in two years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
For example:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151852/court-docs-reveal-samsung-sold-21m-phones-1-4m-tablets-worth-8b-in-us-since-2010
At the time, estimates were that Samsung was selling 35 M smartphones per year. They actually sold 21 M in two years.
Incorrect JR. I already pointed out your error, but apparently it's not convenient to your argument so you've chosen to ignore it?
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/155747/apple-overtakes-samsung-as-top-u-s-mobile-phone-vendor-for-first-time-in-q4-2012#post_2269472
From the AI article itself that you linked:
"It should be noted that not all of Samsung's product lineup is represented in the figures, only those which are alleged as infringing Apple's patents."
The 21M number you toss around applied only to those specific handsets that Apple brought suit against. That was hardly the entire line of Samsung phones available for sale. You knew that, or at least should have if you read the article..
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Your interpretation is wrong. Samsung did not attribute it to the Apple lawsuit as you claimed. Samsung attributed it to 'business risks'. It was the analysts who said it was due to the lawsuit - and no one in their right mind puts much faith in their assertions.
You're quite right, Samsung themselves did not blame it on Apple. It was business sources who came up with that association. No doubt they noted the fact Apple had filed suit their major US lawsuit citing Samsung smartphones and tablets just two months prior, during that specific Samsung quarter where the decision was made to no longer publish numbers. Probably just happenstance though, right?
Heh heh. At this point, the wall I am sitting next to makes more sense than your incoherent ramblings.
Look, the point is simple. Samsung claims to sell a lot. The only 'evidence' we have for that are guesstimates put out by consulting firms. Data on collateral items such as profits and web visits, combined with lack of actual audited data on sales tells us that they're making some stuff up. Most likely, they're selling cheap stuff to Indians and Chinese. (There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.)
People like you have a tough time accepting these simple facts. So all you can do is dissemble, misrepresent, obfuscate, make feeble excuses, and when ll else fails, try to change the topic. Fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Heh heh. At this point, the wall I am sitting next to makes more sense than your incoherent ramblings.
Look, the point is simple. Samsung claims to sell a lot. The only 'evidence' we have for that are guesstimates put out by consulting firms. Data on collateral items such as profits and web visits, combined with lack of actual audited data on sales tells us that they're making some stuff up. Most likely, they're selling cheap stuff to Indians and Chinese. (There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.)
People like you have a tough time accepting these simple facts. So all you can do is dissemble, misrepresent, obfuscate, make feeble excuses, and when ll else fails, try to change the topic. Fail.
So now it's all back to just Samsung again and really not Google activation nuumbers??
I think we're at the end of any beneficial back and forth on the suggestion you originally made: "a problem which would be solved in one stroke if Android manufacturers put out sales and channel inventory numbers". By now everyone is getting confused.
As usual, when caught out, you dissemble, by talking about 'business associates' (um... these are analysts..... I wonder what kind of 'business associates' to Samsung they are) or 'happenstance' (yeah.... sure...must be true because Gatorguy said so....)
Just so people know, here's what you said: "There's a few reasons Samsung would choose be less specific than you like. You've named just two possibilities. The one they mentioned when they stopped doing so is that because of Apple lawsuits they were no longer going to offer specific numbers."
Yes. It took a while to get through, but you got it! Clap clap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
As usual, when caught out, you dissemble, by talking about 'business associates' (um... these are analysts..... I wonder what kind of 'business associates' to Samsung they are) or 'happenstance' (yeah.... sure...must be true because Gatorguy said so....)
Just so people know, here's what you said: There's a few reasons Samsung would choose be less specific than you like. You've named just two possibilities. The one they mentioned when they stopped doing so is that because of Apple lawsuits they were no longer going to offer specific numbers. Valid reason? Dunno. It could instead be for competitive reasons, the same as Apple's reason to decline specifics on model sales. Maybe they're just lying and there really isn't much profit in their smartphone business and they'll eventually be caught by their stockholders. Or maybe they really do sell more smartphones than Apple whether you want to believe it or not.
Hmm, "as usual" you've misstated what I said (I hope we never tire of "as usual" as it's just so effective
Actually, I agree, you used the vacuous term 'business sources,' not 'business associates.' My apologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Actually, I agree, you used the vacuous term 'business sources,' not 'business associates.' My apologies.
Fair enough. My apologies to you as well if I offended you.
And, of course, you're ignoring the fact that almost all of Samsung's biggest sellers were included in Apple's lawsuit - certainly almost everything that could be called a Smartphone.
Even with a few minor handsets not included, how do you explain that the estimates were 35 M per year while the actual numbers were 10.5 M per year?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
And, of course, you're ignoring the fact that almost all of Samsung's biggest sellers were included in Apple's lawsuit - certainly almost everything that could be called a Smartphone.
Even with a few minor handsets not included, how do you explain that the estimates were 35 M per year while the actual numbers were 10.5 M per year?
No, you're ignoring the fact it didn't prove what you say it did, even after being corrected about it more than once. It wasn't my claim to begin with (and where the heck is your 35M average per year figure coming from?)
Can we dispose of that little bit of JR FUD too now, throwing it in the same garbage bin as "all the Android feature phones being marketed and/or sold"?