How do you know exactly? They may not pay analysts, bloggers or writers directly but how do you know the massive advertising money they poured to publications have no effects on the reports?
Or do you think all Bloomberg writers are just anti-Apple?
The issue here is really for android folks. The people that want "open" and choices are going to end up with 30 choices from Samsung, 2 choices from HTC, one X-phone from Google/Mototrola, and a few by each of the smaller players, Sony,LG etc....
How is this good for an industry? It's like cheering that HP is going to run Dell out of business. That's not good for competition or consumers. Samsung has a huge advantage as both a component maker and smartphone maker.
Samsung is the new Sony, and the old Sony is almost dead in HDTVs and smartphone.
How long until ZTE or Huwai, with the massive financial backing of the Chinese Government, become the new Samsung? What if the Chinse government declare that it 's citizens can only buy smartphone from Chinese owned businesses? How long until Chinese companies can provide all of their own components and not rely on Samsung?
Food for thought?
you know this is crap. Show me one place where the galaxy s4 is selling for that price.
This might be the most confusing and useless article ive read in a while. The article tries to imply that samsung gets better subsidies than their competitors, but the truth is that apples phones are subsidized far more than their competitors. The only thing this article says is that samsung sells lots of "value" phones that are fully subsidized by the carriers. However that would be better illustrated by comparing average price per phone.
Considering that the iPhone is subsidized $100 more than most android devices, does it surprise anyone that apple does so well in countries that subsidize phones? By the same logic, is it any surprise that samsung phones are more popular than apple phones in countries without subsidies? Even if the iphone 5 is better than a samsung 4s, is the average consumer willing to pay $100 more for an apple logo? Im actually amazed us carriers are willing to subsidize iphones so heavily, especially considering countless studies show that iphone users use the web more than competitors. As a carrier id have to wonder why im paying more for costumers who cost us more than the competitors (mor data usage tends to mean lower margins on iPhone data plans).
It will be interesting o see how things go moving forward, especially as last generations phones are increasingly good enough for most people.
How do you know exactly? They may not pay analysts, bloggers or writers directly but how do you know the massive advertising money they poured to publications have no effects on the reports?
Or do you think all Bloomberg writers are just anti-Apple?
They are neither pro Apple nor anti Apple. They are pro trading profits. Talking companies up, then talking them down, then talking them up, etc. makes a lot of money if you're part of the gang doing the game on the clueless public.
No analyst can be that stupid:
a) they claim they dump Apple because Apple has slowing growth, so they stock price goes down.
b) even at the peak of the stock price, Apple paid a good dividend and kept still piling up cash
c) so in other words, Apple doesn't need to grow at all to reliably pay handsome dividends, and it had a low P/E ratio even then
d) so Apple's sales and profits would actually have to shrink for their P/E ratio to come into more normal ranges, and to stop piling up cash while even paying the same dividends.
In other words, for Apple's stock price to be where it's now, it would actually have to see its business collapse, but Apple is growing. So the valuation is factually wrong. But the market isn't about facts, it's about psychology, and if people know how to talk a company up and down, they can make massively profitable trades; and that's what's happening. This was particularly obvious when they chose to ignore the different length of Q4 last fiscal year, or when they chose to ignore the effect of the timing of new product releases into the sales and revenue and profit margins. These things follow known patterns and need to be averaged out to be meaningful, but they choose not to do that, when it serves their narrative.
Everyone looking at the figures knows Apple isn't going anywhere. The eco system is too sticky, the products are too good, the company financially too healthy, too much R&D going on, etc. Just because feature phones are being replaced with low-end smart phones that hardly see any use besides a bit of Facebook reading doesn't mean Apple's real market is being taken away from them.
Of course, ANY MARKET that a company creates will see competition eventually, and competition will always take some part of that market, regardless of the relative qualities of the competing products. There are always enough people who don't get the difference between a better and a worse product, or people who just want to be different, or products that fulfill some very special requirements and thus gain some customers.
None of that is new or surprising, but if you're in the business of talking companies up and down for trading profits, then you can spin all of these obvious facts in various ways to suit your goals, and you will succeed when too many clueless people buy stock and get spooked by these analysts.
Unfortunately, there's much too little investigation in these things. Just like the rating agencies played a huge part in the mortgage securities scam (and thus the collapse of the housing market), so the analysts play a huge part in the stock market scam. We had that sort of pattern already before the tech bubble burst way back when: analysts talked companies up for profit, until things collapsed. Now they are a bit smarter: they don't talk entire sectors up, they talk individual companies up and down, that way they prevent the entire market from melting down, but they can still make their profits.
Short of Samsung speculating with Apple stock, they have nothing to gain or lose from Apple's stock price. Not even Apple cares about the stock price. Both companies care about marketing, sales, profits, products and intellectual property, everything else is a side show. Neither Apple nor Samsung does better or worse because their stocks are up or down. They do better or worse when their profits are up or down.
What does the percentage matter? The absolute value of the subsidy is the important thing, especially if the contracts the phones are offered are the same, or similar, since that's where the subsidy is paid off..
@rfca smh...get a life. Don't act like you have stock in either company... You probably haven't seen the light of day in a week. Long winded condescending post on issues you have NOTHING to do with make you look dumb.
I'm curious what Samsung's profit in mobile department will be after Apple departed with their parts to other suppliers.
It is actually likely to increase Samsung's profit in the mobile department.
Samsung doesn't count semiconductor manufacturing in its mobile department. Apple leaving Samsung is unlikely to affect them- Samsung can't keep up with its own demand for processors and currently outsources I believe more than 50% of its production to foundries. So Samsung is just going to make a larger percentage of its own processors and have to spend less outsourcing to the foundries. As long as demand for devices exceeds production capabilities, customers moving from one manufacturer is largely just a shell game- 100% of their capacity will still be utilized.
Since Samsung can make its own processors cheaper than outsourcing them, their manufacturing cost per phone will go down, and the mobile unit will record higher profit (the semiconductor/electronics unit will 'lose' the Apple income directly, but spend less buying processors- so its a wash for them).
If there was nothing to fill the excess capacity from Apple leaving it would have hurt a little.
It is actually likely to increase Samsung's profit in the mobile department.
...
As long as demand for devices exceeds production capabilities, customers moving from one manufacturer is largely just a shell game- 100% of their capacity will still be utilized.
Exactly.
Years ago, Apple leaving would've probably meant some factories laying idle. But things have changed. Now mobile chips are needed by more companies than ever before.
Samsung parts, being of high quality (thus the reason why Apple chose them in the first place... and still use them), are usually in high demand.
So as Apple begins to take up capacity at other chipmakers, at least some of those makers' customers will likely move (back) over to Samsung.
Net likely effect: Samsung can sell chips at a higher price than what had Apple negotiated via quantity.
I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop: Samsung Galaxy Tizen edition. Samsung is now big enough name that people don't necessarily care if it runs Android.
I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop: Samsung Galaxy Tizen edition. Samsung is now big enough name that people don't necessarily care if it runs Android.
Yes we might see more windows 8 devices from them, just more failures however.
I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop: Samsung Galaxy Tizen edition. Samsung is now big enough name that people don't necessarily care if it runs Android.
The sooner the better: more competition, better for Samsung, better for Apple, a kick in the balls for Google.
The more competition, the bigger the incentive for someone to adopt a truly open system that doesn't require to be rooted/jail broken.
I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop: Samsung Galaxy Tizen edition. Samsung is now big enough name that people don't necessarily care if it runs Android.
You mean Samsung Galaxy OS, coming in 2014, that will run exclusive Samsung apps and be compatible with all your legacy Android apps?
"Samsung and its partner carriers lead the market in offering device subsidies at percentages substantially higher than their nearest competitors. "
That's an incredibly twisted and misleading interpretation of the data. In fact Samsung receives a much LOWER subsidy, which is only bigger in percentage terms because they sell their phones at huge DISCOUNTS
In fact the iPhone remains the most desirable phone for carriers' customers and attracts subsidies 25% LARGER than Samsung, because iPhone customers are by far the most profitable for carriers as can be seen by the way the iPhone 5 already accounts for 75% of 4G traffic (see latest Chitika data)
There have been many reports that the S4 is selling badly, which appears to be confirmed by Comscore who say that in May the iPhone took 39.2% US market share, which is 70.4% MORE than Samsung's 23%..
This is especially bad for Samsung considering that
1) They have just released their S4 and yet is is still being outsold by iPhones by a huge margin in the the world's most sophisticated market
and
2) Samsung's 23% market share includes many cheaper phones which are given away at huge discounts and special offers, which are used mainly as feature phones.
"Samsung and its partner carriers lead the market in offering device subsidies at percentages substantially higher than their nearest competitors. "
That's an incredibly twisted and misleading interpretation of the data. In fact Samsung receives a much LOWER subsidy, which is only bigger in percentage terms because they sell their phones at huge DISCOUNTS
In fact the iPhone remains the most desirable phone for carriers' customers and attracts subsidies 25% LARGER than Samsung, because iPhone customers are by far the most profitable for carriers as can be seen by the way the iPhone 5 already accounts for 75% of 4G traffic (see latest Chitika data)
There have been many reports that the S4 is selling badly, which appears to be confirmed by Comscore who say that in May the iPhone took 39.2% US market share, which is 70.4% MORE than Samsung's 23%..
This is especially bad for Samsung considering that
1) They have just released their S4 and yet is is still being outsold by iPhones by a huge margin in the the world's most sophisticated market
and
2) Samsung's 23% market share includes many cheaper phones which are given away at huge discounts and special offers, which are used mainly as feature phones.
I think the S4 is selling, but not nearly as well as Samsung predicted. They claim 10M shipped, so maybe there are a lot of S4s sitting on shelves, maybe explaining all the $50 discounts I'm seeing ("Buy a Galaxy device and get a $50 gift card..."), which seems odd for such a new phone. I wonder who's footing that bill, Samsung or the retailer?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa
Samsung doesn't pay analysts.
How do you know exactly? They may not pay analysts, bloggers or writers directly but how do you know the massive advertising money they poured to publications have no effects on the reports?
Or do you think all Bloomberg writers are just anti-Apple?
All they all come with rounded corners, motion sensors, vibration alert and even can go to sleep when you're loosing attention.
Considering that the iPhone is subsidized $100 more than most android devices, does it surprise anyone that apple does so well in countries that subsidize phones? By the same logic, is it any surprise that samsung phones are more popular than apple phones in countries without subsidies? Even if the iphone 5 is better than a samsung 4s, is the average consumer willing to pay $100 more for an apple logo? Im actually amazed us carriers are willing to subsidize iphones so heavily, especially considering countless studies show that iphone users use the web more than competitors. As a carrier id have to wonder why im paying more for costumers who cost us more than the competitors (mor data usage tends to mean lower margins on iPhone data plans).
It will be interesting o see how things go moving forward, especially as last generations phones are increasingly good enough for most people.
Philp
They are neither pro Apple nor anti Apple. They are pro trading profits. Talking companies up, then talking them down, then talking them up, etc. makes a lot of money if you're part of the gang doing the game on the clueless public.
No analyst can be that stupid:
a) they claim they dump Apple because Apple has slowing growth, so they stock price goes down.
b) even at the peak of the stock price, Apple paid a good dividend and kept still piling up cash
c) so in other words, Apple doesn't need to grow at all to reliably pay handsome dividends, and it had a low P/E ratio even then
d) so Apple's sales and profits would actually have to shrink for their P/E ratio to come into more normal ranges, and to stop piling up cash while even paying the same dividends.
In other words, for Apple's stock price to be where it's now, it would actually have to see its business collapse, but Apple is growing. So the valuation is factually wrong. But the market isn't about facts, it's about psychology, and if people know how to talk a company up and down, they can make massively profitable trades; and that's what's happening. This was particularly obvious when they chose to ignore the different length of Q4 last fiscal year, or when they chose to ignore the effect of the timing of new product releases into the sales and revenue and profit margins. These things follow known patterns and need to be averaged out to be meaningful, but they choose not to do that, when it serves their narrative.
Everyone looking at the figures knows Apple isn't going anywhere. The eco system is too sticky, the products are too good, the company financially too healthy, too much R&D going on, etc. Just because feature phones are being replaced with low-end smart phones that hardly see any use besides a bit of Facebook reading doesn't mean Apple's real market is being taken away from them.
Of course, ANY MARKET that a company creates will see competition eventually, and competition will always take some part of that market, regardless of the relative qualities of the competing products. There are always enough people who don't get the difference between a better and a worse product, or people who just want to be different, or products that fulfill some very special requirements and thus gain some customers.
None of that is new or surprising, but if you're in the business of talking companies up and down for trading profits, then you can spin all of these obvious facts in various ways to suit your goals, and you will succeed when too many clueless people buy stock and get spooked by these analysts.
Unfortunately, there's much too little investigation in these things. Just like the rating agencies played a huge part in the mortgage securities scam (and thus the collapse of the housing market), so the analysts play a huge part in the stock market scam. We had that sort of pattern already before the tech bubble burst way back when: analysts talked companies up for profit, until things collapsed. Now they are a bit smarter: they don't talk entire sectors up, they talk individual companies up and down, that way they prevent the entire market from melting down, but they can still make their profits.
Short of Samsung speculating with Apple stock, they have nothing to gain or lose from Apple's stock price. Not even Apple cares about the stock price. Both companies care about marketing, sales, profits, products and intellectual property, everything else is a side show. Neither Apple nor Samsung does better or worse because their stocks are up or down. They do better or worse when their profits are up or down.
I'm curious what Samsung's profit in mobile department will be after Apple departed with their parts to other suppliers.
What does the percentage matter? The absolute value of the subsidy is the important thing, especially if the contracts the phones are offered are the same, or similar, since that's where the subsidy is paid off..
Not me. They are playing a dangerous game. In the end when Wall Street finally get to look at their real numbers there will be a loud sucking noise.
smh...get a life. Don't act like you have stock in either company... You probably haven't seen the light of day in a week. Long winded condescending post on issues you have NOTHING to do with make you look dumb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by copeland
I'm curious what Samsung's profit in mobile department will be after Apple departed with their parts to other suppliers.
It is actually likely to increase Samsung's profit in the mobile department.
Samsung doesn't count semiconductor manufacturing in its mobile department. Apple leaving Samsung is unlikely to affect them- Samsung can't keep up with its own demand for processors and currently outsources I believe more than 50% of its production to foundries. So Samsung is just going to make a larger percentage of its own processors and have to spend less outsourcing to the foundries. As long as demand for devices exceeds production capabilities, customers moving from one manufacturer is largely just a shell game- 100% of their capacity will still be utilized.
Since Samsung can make its own processors cheaper than outsourcing them, their manufacturing cost per phone will go down, and the mobile unit will record higher profit (the semiconductor/electronics unit will 'lose' the Apple income directly, but spend less buying processors- so its a wash for them).
If there was nothing to fill the excess capacity from Apple leaving it would have hurt a little.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood
It is actually likely to increase Samsung's profit in the mobile department.
...
As long as demand for devices exceeds production capabilities, customers moving from one manufacturer is largely just a shell game- 100% of their capacity will still be utilized.
Exactly.
Years ago, Apple leaving would've probably meant some factories laying idle. But things have changed. Now mobile chips are needed by more companies than ever before.
Samsung parts, being of high quality (thus the reason why Apple chose them in the first place... and still use them), are usually in high demand.
So as Apple begins to take up capacity at other chipmakers, at least some of those makers' customers will likely move (back) over to Samsung.
Net likely effect: Samsung can sell chips at a higher price than what had Apple negotiated via quantity.
The sooner the better: more competition, better for Samsung, better for Apple, a kick in the balls for Google.
The more competition, the bigger the incentive for someone to adopt a truly open system that doesn't require to be rooted/jail broken.
You mean Samsung Galaxy OS, coming in 2014, that will run exclusive Samsung apps and be compatible with all your legacy Android apps?
That's an incredibly twisted and misleading interpretation of the data. In fact Samsung receives a much LOWER subsidy, which is only bigger in percentage terms because they sell their phones at huge DISCOUNTS
In fact the iPhone remains the most desirable phone for carriers' customers and attracts subsidies 25% LARGER than Samsung, because iPhone customers are by far the most profitable for carriers as can be seen by the way the iPhone 5 already accounts for 75% of 4G traffic (see latest Chitika data)
There have been many reports that the S4 is selling badly, which appears to be confirmed by Comscore who say that in May the iPhone took 39.2% US market share, which is 70.4% MORE than Samsung's 23%..
This is especially bad for Samsung considering that
1) They have just released their S4 and yet is is still being outsold by iPhones by a huge margin in the the world's most sophisticated market
and
2) Samsung's 23% market share includes many cheaper phones which are given away at huge discounts and special offers, which are used mainly as feature phones.
I think the S4 is selling, but not nearly as well as Samsung predicted. They claim 10M shipped, so maybe there are a lot of S4s sitting on shelves, maybe explaining all the $50 discounts I'm seeing ("Buy a Galaxy device and get a $50 gift card..."), which seems odd for such a new phone. I wonder who's footing that bill, Samsung or the retailer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secular Investor
the world's most sophisticated market
Japan?