It's really "don't be evil", but since 'do no evil' is distinct from that, it's quite possible they're interpreting their slogan to mean that doing evil acts doesn't imply being evil.
Or, "Oh, you thought it was 'don't be evil'? No no, it's 'Doughn tbeah eaffil". The person who thought that up spoke Scottish Gaelic, you see."
Android forums have plenty of material that keeps them busy, since they have a lot of manufacturers that put out new products.
Apple on the other hand has 2 or 3 products, which has been condensed into 2-3 months release cycles. So all Apple related websites would really have no content for 9 months if they didn't bash other products.
If you really think about it it's sad times to be an Apple only website. Apple products and news are increasingly less exciting as times go by. Their products are becoming pedestrian and have fallen into Microsoft's Windows style of releasing few upgrades to "please the crowd". I mean the iPhone 5 looked like the 4S, which looked just like the 4, which closely resembled the 3GS, which was exactly like the 3G. I mean, at this point anyone with Photoshop can make the iPhone 5S
Its no wonder this website posts news of competitors. like Apple, AI is still trying to remain relevant.
Sometimes it's not about the "look", holding an iPhone 5 feels very different to holding an iPhone 4.
really, I would have pictured you as a Hyundai buyer. They look just like Hondas designs, are just as reliable, get better gas milage according to the window sticker, and cheaper. The name even sounds like Honda. "Hondie" ;) Hope you see what I did there to bring it full circle back to the Nexus 7 vs iPad.
Even the model name have similar meaning:
Accord = <span style="font-family:Arial;line-height:normal;">bring into harmony</span>
<span style="font-family:Arial;line-height:normal;">Sonata = </span>
<span style="font-family:Arial;line-height:normal;">A composition for one or more solo instruments</span>
You think I begrudge Hyundai for marketing a family sedan?
No, if it came out that way I apologize. I was replying to someone who likes Omega watches. I just so happen to have someone in my family who works directly for them. Their normally not cheap watches. He has a lot of demo's that he gives away to us as Christmas and birthday presents. I was just adding that if anyone is looking for one I can put them in touch directly with Omega. No profit will be made from this, it was a nice thing that I thought someone would appreciate.
I don't think anyone is interested in what watches you and your family wears. You seem like someone that is trying to impress everyone with your money. sorry, but it's not impressing me. Maybe you should take your non-Apple related comments elsewhere. Your comment DEFINITELY should be classified as an off-topic, silly comment that should be filed under "Who cares".
I wasn't trying to impress, we get them for free as presents as in no money. I was replying to a post about the person liking Omega watches.
This is not that big a deal. They cited a report without digging into the method of analysis. Quite common.
Except that Google could have cited figures from their own sales and activation data. Nexus is a Google Product and they should have exact sales data. Rather you choose to cite a research data!
It's like asking 10 persons about your weight and then average it to get your wight when just standing on the weight machine would have given you the fact.
But, Google was not looking for fact here, they wanted a favorable figure, wasn't they?
...and comparing Apple products to the Swiss watch industry, both are besieged by a sea of cheap knock offs.
Who cares if Chinese companies buy up bankrupt Swiss watch companies solely so they can use the name on cheap junk.
I equate Android to this.
Corum wasn't bankrupt, quite the contrary, Hon Kwak Lung paid a fortune for the company and will continue the tradition of fine watches, nothing cheap will come off of their assembly line, if they do produce crap watches they will fail miserably as we have an abundance of fine watch makers. Corum is also one of the smallest and newest watch makers in Switzerland and isn't considered one of our top watch producers. Hon's plans is to increase production and manufacturing facilities to compete worldwide and will keep producing in Switzerland, that's why he was able to acquire the company in the first place, the government would have never aloud the sale otherwise. There was also an agreement that if he produces the watches in China he will have to forgo the made in Switzerland stamp or any other marker with Swiss on it. We are also one of the wealthiest countries in the world with one of the lowest unemployment rates, if one of our prized watch manufactures was on the verge of bankruptcy the government would have stepped in to bale them out in a heart beat. An example of how Switzerland protects our people is they pay farmers not to sale their land and buys any food that doesn't sale just so we don't become dependent on foreign food and to protect the landscape. Antonio Calce, CEO of Corum wants to become a world player in the watch business as well and he couldn't have done that on in his own so he pushed for the merger, he will continue working as the CEO and no one will loose their jobs over this purchase. This is partly due to our laws that any foreign company must have at least a 70% Swiss work force, that and there is only 130 employees currently working at Corum. It really is a tiny Ma & Pa type setup, they craft all watches by hand.
Not all Android devices are crap. There have been some pretty fantastically built, quality products over the years. For example a Motorola Xoom II, Sony Tablet Z, Asus Transformer Pad Infinity, Asus Eee Pad Slider, Toshiba AT200, ect., easily match the hardware quality of any iPad. There are plenty of people who enjoy using Android and all of it's benefits. Yes I said benefits, working with remote servers, streaming video from a computer, playing almost every codec there is, file-manager, apps that talk to each other, customization, widgets, multiple users, ect. I also enjoy my iPad very, very much, the music creation apps alone for instance are bar none the coolest I have ever played with but Apple controls way to much of what I can and cannot due and that just sucks. Why can't I have a filemanager, it's Unix, when an iPad is Jail-broken I can see the complete HD tree. Why can't I change the default web-browser, MS was sued and lost because of that a few years back. I don't want to see all of my apps, why can't I have a custom home screen where I can populate with what I want like; widgets, notes, or just a big clock because I like a clean look. Every OS has it's upside and downside, saying that you dislike Android is absolutely fine but calling it a cheap knockoff isn't. Everything that Apple has done in iOS has been done before, granted not as visually stunning but none the less nothing we haven't seen before, icons in a grid, heck icons, notifications, what, please tell me what is so revolutionary that it can't be used on another platform because it is so sacred to Apple. Do you really think that Android 4.3 looks exactly like iOS 6 or even 7 because I see very little similarities anymore. If no one copied ideas off of each other the computer industry would still be using ASCII for everything. When is copying a good thing and not a bad thing or visa versa. Remember it was cheap IBM clones that put computers to where we are at now. If IBM went after everyone the way Apple does the computer landscape would be a lot different now and a lot more expensive. What would have happened if Xerox gave Apple the finger all those years back and just sat on the GUI. How long would it have taken for Apple or MS to come up with a GUI derived OS, 5, 8 years.
I honestly like, iOS, Android, Windows X, Unix, Linux, Symbian, Plan 9, OSX, Risc OS, BeOS, OS, OS2 or eComStation, Amiga, MeegOS, ect. I understand your passion for Apple's OS's, their wonderful to use, intuitive, fast, unique but they've come to light because of other peoples ideas. Nothing was made by just one person or one company, it's an accumulation of technological ideas past down over the years. If you condemn one OS, you'll have to condemn them all because they all come from similar backgrounds.
Please be nice when you tear me a new one and you will it's inevitable, I don't mean to belittle Apple's achievements in any way, they have done great things but so has the competition. Remember, people design these things, not corporations.
I'm concerned by the media's willingness to engage in such a biased dialogue. It's amazing how quickly "unit sales" has displaced "profit" as the barometer of success in the tech media. Is this because it's the only metric by which Android could be determined to be a success? Or perhaps because "profit" is hard to quantify when Google's revenue model is subsidised by a personal information economy and advertising revenue?
Apple is currently at a significant low point in their release cycle for basically their entire line-up. For the iPad this is contrasted witha relative high point in their release cycle ago to evoke a narrative of how "little change" there was in "year-over-year iPad sales". But unless the release cycle has a 12-month periodicy this is an incredibly crude measure of the relative appeal of the iPad brand over time. A better KPI is the number of iPads sold in a predetermined period following launch. Data which (assuming no supply constraints) clearly demonstrates that each new iPad is selling to more customers than the last.
None of this means Apple are losing appeal or ground. Clearly they are just accruing potential energy on future sales. iOS 7, iPad 5, iPhone 5S and iPhone 5C. In September these sales numbers are going to be measured on the richter scale.
I'm concerned by the media's willingness to engage in such a biased dialogue. It's amazing how quickly "unit sales" has displaced "profit" as the barometer of success in the tech media. Is this because it's the only metric by which Android could be determined to be a success? Or perhaps because "profit" is hard to quantify when Google's revenue model is subsidised by a personal information economy and advertising revenue?
Apple is currently at a significant low point in their release cycle for basically their entire line-up. For the iPad this is contrasted witha relative high point in their release cycle ago to evoke a narrative of how "little change" there was in "year-over-year iPad sales". But unless the release cycle has a 12-month periodicy this is an incredibly crude measure of the relative appeal of the iPad brand over time. A better KPI is the number of iPads sold in a predetermined period following launch. Data which (assuming no supply constraints) clearly demonstrates that each new iPad is selling to more customers than the last.
None of this means Apple are losing appeal or ground. Clearly they are just accruing potential energy on future sales. iOS 7, iPad 5, iPhone 5S and iPhone 5C. In September these sales numbers are going to be measured on the richter scale.
I sure hope Apple releases a 4.5+ screen iPhone to go after that market sometime in the near future. I wish it were this year, but it's probably next year. THAT would definitely increase their market share.
Samsung buys market share by spitting out some old GIngerbread phone that's sold for $150 list and discounted down to $99 for the unlocked version, but that device makes ZERO profit. It's a lost leader, product dump rather than to make any money. It's a deceptive practice to try to buy market share and it usually catches up with these companies.
Apple is getting far more acceptance in the Enterprise and Educational markets which is a VERY stable user base as they don't switch platforms like an individual might.
I personally think that there will be a trend in the Android and Windows platform where there will be some mfg getting out of that business due to lack of profits and/or sales. It wouldn't surprise me if HTC went out, since all they make are smartphones. What I laugh about are these hole in the wall Chinese Android and WIndows OEM tablets where you never heard of the company and they sell a product that costs $60. It's laughable at how much garbage is actually sold by these incredibly cheap OEM mfg. Do people buy them? I guess. But they are the type of product that gets thrown away within a month. Kind of like those stores that sell the Rolex knockoffs that stop working shortly after you buy it. The schlock of the industry.
Corum wasn't bankrupt, quite the contrary, Hon Kwak Lung paid a fortune for the company and will continue the tradition of fine watches, nothing cheap will come off of their assembly line, if they do produce crap watches they will fail miserably as we have an abundance of fine watch makers. Corum is also one of the smallest and newest watch makers in Switzerland and isn't considered one of our top watch producers. Hon's plans is to increase production and manufacturing facilities to compete worldwide and will keep producing in Switzerland, that's why he was able to acquire the company in the first place, the government would have never aloud the sale otherwise. There was also an agreement that if he produces the watches in China he will have to forgo the made in Switzerland stamp or any other marker with Swiss on it. We are also one of the wealthiest countries in the world with one of the lowest unemployment rates, if one of our prized watch manufactures was on the verge of bankruptcy the government would have stepped in to bale them out in a heart beat. An example of how Switzerland protects our people is they pay farmers not to sale their land and buys any food that doesn't sale just so we don't become dependent on foreign food and to protect the landscape. Antonio Calce, CEO of Corum wants to become a world player in the watch business as well and he couldn't have done that on in his own so he pushed for the merger, he will continue working as the CEO and no one will loose their jobs over this purchase. This is partly due to our laws that any foreign company must have at least a 70% Swiss work force, that and there is only 130 employees currently working at Corum. It really is a tiny Ma & Pa type setup, they craft all watches by hand.
Not all Android devices are crap. There have been some pretty fantastically built, quality products over the years. For example a Motorola Xoom II, Sony Tablet Z, Asus Transformer Pad Infinity, Asus Eee Pad Slider, Toshiba AT200, ect., easily match the hardware quality of any iPad. There are plenty of people who enjoy using Android and all of it's benefits. Yes I said benefits, working with remote servers, streaming video from a computer, playing almost every codec there is, file-manager, apps that talk to each other, customization, widgets, multiple users, ect. I also enjoy my iPad very, very much, the music creation apps alone for instance are bar none the coolest I have ever played with but Apple controls way to much of what I can and cannot due and that just sucks. Why can't I have a filemanager, it's Unix, when an iPad is Jail-broken I can see the complete HD tree. Why can't I change the default web-browser, MS was sued and lost because of that a few years back. I don't want to see all of my apps, why can't I have a custom home screen where I can populate with what I want like; widgets, notes, or just a big clock because I like a clean look. Every OS has it's upside and downside, saying that you dislike Android is absolutely fine but calling it a cheap knockoff isn't. Everything that Apple has done in iOS has been done before, granted not as visually stunning but none the less nothing we haven't seen before, icons in a grid, heck icons, notifications, what, please tell me what is so revolutionary that it can't be used on another platform because it is so sacred to Apple. Do you really think that Android 4.3 looks exactly like iOS 6 or even 7 because I see very little similarities anymore. If no one copied ideas off of each other the computer industry would still be using ASCII for everything. When is copying a good thing and not a bad thing or visa versa. Remember it was cheap IBM clones that put computers to where we are at now. If IBM went after everyone the way Apple does the computer landscape would be a lot different now and a lot more expensive. What would have happened if Xerox gave Apple the finger all those years back and just sat on the GUI. How long would it have taken for Apple or MS to come up with a GUI derived OS, 5, 8 years.
I honestly like, iOS, Android, Windows X, Unix, Linux, Symbian, Plan 9, OSX, Risc OS, BeOS, OS, OS2 or eComStation, Amiga, MeegOS, ect. I understand your passion for Apple's OS's, their wonderful to use, intuitive, fast, unique but they've come to light because of other peoples ideas. Nothing was made by just one person or one company, it's an accumulation of technological ideas past down over the years. If you condemn one OS, you'll have to condemn them all because they all come from similar backgrounds.
Please be nice when you tear me a new one and you will it's inevitable, I don't mean to belittle Apple's achievements in any way, they have done great things but so has the competition. Remember, people design these things, not corporations.
to me, it's all the same $HIT.
What I don't like about the Android platform is that you can't walk into any store and find all of the Android devices running the latest OS. Even the top of the line Flagship samsung doesn't come with the latest OS. It runs 4.2.2 and 4.3 just came out a couple of days ago and it will take about 6 or 7 months for Samscum to release 4.3. Heck, it takes Samscum 6 to 7 months to update their S3 phones with 4.2.2. To me, the entire Android OEM platform is nothing but selling products that don't run and probably will never run the latest OS for very long. The S4 is only 2 months old and it doesn't run 4.3. WTF? That's a problem with the inherent business model.
Most of the OSs you mentioned failed in the market other than Android, OS X, iOS, and Windows. But based on the lack of sales, Windows RT is a failure, almost as bad as Windows Vista. If the company develops the software properly and the hardware that supports is made well and there is a good support system and industry support, it can succeed, but each model has it's flaws.
How would you like it if you ran a company with 50,000 employees and you standardized on IBM computers and you got notice from IBM that they sold off their PC unit to Lenovo and now you have to deal with Lenovo which has ZERO track record and you just don't like doing business with a foreign company? Same thing happened with Compaq, only they now have to deal with HP.
Look at what's going on with HP and Dell? If they could find a buyer for their PC units, they'd sell since they don't make any profits. NONE of the PC mfg are making decent profits. NONE OF THEM. Samsung is only making decent profits because they make most of the guts inside, but they don't develop Android OS, do they? NOPE.
Every choice with the brand of hardware and OS has pros and cons, it's just deciding what you are willing to deal with. I like the one stop shop approach as it has worked for me. I would have hated having to use Windows should Apple gone out of business, but they didn't. They came back and they have enough cash to last them decades, plus they know how to manage their business, be profitable and maintain their level of quality. Going with whomever is the cheapest doesn't create the right business environment for me, because I can't be sure if they'll still be in business. I am loyal to the companies I choose to do business with, until they prove that they can't fulfill my needs. I don't like having to switch brands for most things I buy. That's not what I call good business practice. I may not like everything Apple does, but I assure you, I can submit feedback and they usually get around to doing most of the requests i have, as long as the request is a reasonable request. THey haven't screwed up enough for me to switch. Microsoft has. Once they screw up to the point where I switch, I RARELY go back. I just have a tough time buying an Android product when I can't buy something that has the latest OS on it and can't get updates in a timely manner. Plus, Google isn't a IT based company. They make their money from ad revenue and ad clicks. They have proven they are running open loop by how they manage their products. Not a; reliable company for me to rely on.
I'm not a fan of it either, I prefer reading about Google on forums specific to them. Even the Android forums I frequent have nowhere near the amount of bashing Appleinsider does. It's getting to the point where it's comical, just plain petty.
You're not a fan of this type of thing yet in most threads, you post something to denigrate Apple. Recall the stories about how many cracked iPhone screens you've seen at a party, how many non-iPads you've seen on the trading floor, how the Nokia Lumia is so much better than an iPhone, going on about the limitations of iOS, how suddenly because Apple decided to use AMD in the new Mac Pro, the CUDA software you don't even have won't run anywhere near as fast as on non-Apple hardware, how Apple hasn't really invented anything and is just riding off other people's innovations.
This isn't a bashing article. Google reported false information and they got called on it. On many occasions you claim to not be tied into one particular manufacturer, the implication being that Apple users just buy everything Apple no matter what but if that's the case then why have a problem with Google's falsehoods being corrected? If you defend everything so long as it's not Apple, that's not impartial.
I don't want to see all of my apps, why can't I have a custom home screen where I can populate with what I want like; widgets, notes, or just a big clock because I like a clean look.
I'd rather remove the widgets from Android and just get straight to the apps. I assume that's possible to do. OS designers make choices about functionality and design. If they added widgets, you'd be one of the first to suggest they are just playing catch up to Android. There's always suggestions Apple should do things the same as Android and when they do anything that looks remotely similar like notifications or design, people criticize them for it.
Every OS has it's upside and downside, saying that you dislike Android is absolutely fine but calling it a cheap knockoff isn't. Everything that Apple has done in iOS has been done before, granted not as visually stunning but none the less nothing we haven't seen before, icons in a grid, heck icons, notifications, what, please tell me what is so revolutionary that it can't be used on another platform because it is so sacred to Apple.
I honestly like, iOS, Android, Windows X, Unix, Linux, Symbian, Plan 9, OSX, Risc OS, BeOS, OS, OS2 or eComStation, Amiga, MeegOS, ect. I understand your passion for Apple's OS's, their wonderful to use, intuitive, fast, unique but they've come to light because of other peoples ideas.
More Apple bashing. Android wasn't designed for a touch UI, it had no software keyboard. The appearance and behaviour of the OS was taken from Apple almost immediately after Apple showed it off. Apple's operating systems are also heavily based on NeXT, it's not just some off-the-shelf unix. The first versions of the internet were developed on NeXT OS:
"Inventor of the world wide web describes how the Unix-based NeXT Computer he unpacked in 1990 came ready to run - unlike most of the Unix boxes he had to deal with"
You can dismiss their input to the computing world as simple 'repackaging' but it would be doing them a disservice. If you think the computers, smartphones and tablets you use every day would have been the same without Apple, you are very much mistaken and they've earned the success they have, especially with the iPad. When Google misreports numbers to feed people's misguided attempts at dethroning Apple, there's nothing wrong with setting the record straight.
You're not a fan of this type of thing yet in most threads, you post something to denigrate Apple. Recall the stories about how many cracked iPhone screens you've seen at a party, how many non-iPads you've seen on the trading floor, how the Nokia Lumia is so much better than an iPhone, going on about the limitations of iOS, how suddenly because Apple decided to use AMD in the new Mac Pro, the CUDA software you don't even have won't run anywhere near as fast as on non-Apple hardware, how Apple hasn't really invented anything and is just riding off other people's innovations.
This isn't a bashing article. Google reported false information and they got called on it. On many occasions you claim to not be tied into one particular manufacturer, the implication being that Apple users just buy everything Apple no matter what but if that's the case then why have a problem with Google's falsehoods being corrected? If you defend everything so long as it's not Apple, that's not impartial.
MS had a 90%+ marketshare, Apple doesn't. Also Apple adheres to open standards, MS didn't.
I'd rather remove the widgets from Android and just get straight to the apps. I assume that's possible to do. OS designers make choices about functionality and design. If they added widgets, you'd be one of the first to suggest they are just playing catch up to Android. There's always suggestions Apple should do things the same as Android and when they do anything that looks remotely similar like notifications or design, people criticize them for it.
More Apple bashing. Android wasn't designed for a touch UI, it had no software keyboard. The appearance and behaviour of the OS was taken from Apple almost immediately after Apple showed it off. Apple's operating systems are also heavily based on NeXT, it's not just some off-the-shelf unix. The first versions of the internet were developed on NeXT OS:
"Inventor of the world wide web describes how the Unix-based NeXT Computer he unpacked in 1990 came ready to run - unlike most of the Unix boxes he had to deal with"
You can dismiss their input to the computing world as simple 'repackaging' but it would be doing them a disservice. If you think the computers, smartphones and tablets you use every day would have been the same without Apple, you are very much mistaken and they've earned the success they have, especially with the iPad. When Google misreports numbers to feed people's misguided attempts at dethroning Apple, there's nothing wrong with setting the record straight.
Don't waste your time with Relic. She obviously doesn't like Apple and can't seem to understand that this site is an Apple-centric site. She likes collecting gadgets.
She doesn't realize that if Android OS kept up with it's original path of having a smartphone with a physical keyboard, that Android would be no where, because as soon as the iPhone came out, Android changed direction and tried to emulate an iOS device. Pathetic really.
Samsung buys market share by spitting out some old GIngerbread phone that's sold for $150 list and discounted down to $99 for the unlocked version, but that device makes ZERO profit. It's a lost leader, product dump rather than to make any money. It's a deceptive practice to try to buy market share and it usually catches up with these companies.
What phones do you think that Samsung is selling at a loss?
Phones don't have to cost much to produce, and they don't need to make hundreds of dollars each to turn a profit. Heck, Nokia just introduced the following feature phone for $20... and still makes 30% profit.
As for smartphones, with modern all-in-one chips, building one has become like building smart toys. Almost anyone can do it.
There are dozens (if not hundreds) of small manufacturers in places like China and India, who build and sell smartphones for under $100... some of whom have become multi-million dollar companies, like Xiaomi, which is known as "The Apple of the East".
Interestingly, Xiaomi introduced a (4.3" 720p display, 2GB RAM) $320 smartphone last April in multiple colors:
Local companies like those are the competition that both Samsung and Apple really have to contend with.
What phones do you think that Samsung is selling at a loss?
Phones don't have to cost much to produce, and they don't need to make hundreds of dollars each to turn a profit. Heck, Nokia just introduced the following feature phone for $20... and still makes 30% profit.
As for smartphones, with modern all-in-one chips, building one has become like building smart toys. Almost anyone can do it.
There are dozens (if not hundreds) of small manufacturers in places like China and India, who build and sell smartphones for under $100... some of whom have become multi-million dollar companies, like Xiaomi, which is known as "The Apple of the East".
Interestingly, Xiaomi introduced a (4.3" 720p display, 2GB RAM) $320 smartphone last April in multiple colors:
Local companies like those are the competition that both Samsung and Apple really have to contend with.
I think the Samscum Aspire are selling at a loss. They are $150 List price for an unlocked phone. The resellers discount them down to $99. How much does it cost to mfg the thing, recoup the marketing and R&D, tooling, and shipping charges, warranty returns on that type of product? How much do they sell them to the resellers for? They sell a ton of these $150 list price phones to people that don't have any money. It's got to cost them somewhere in the $50 to $75 range just mfg them, but how much does it cost for tooling, R&D, marketing, absorbing so many under warranty, and shipping costs? That's a break-even or money loosing product.
I think the Samscum Aspire are selling at a loss. They are $150 List price for an unlocked phone. The resellers discount them down to $99. How much does it cost to mfg the thing, recoup the marketing and R&D, tooling, and shipping charges, warranty returns on that type of product? How much do they sell them to the resellers for? They sell a ton of these $150 list price phones to people that don't have any money. It's got to cost them somewhere in the $50 to $75 range just mfg them, but how much does it cost for tooling, R&D, marketing, absorbing so many under warranty, and shipping costs? That's a break-even or money loosing product.
You can't make money on a mobile device that sells for $200 or less unless you have some serious markup. You have so much in shrinkage due to warranty returns/repairs, you have tooling charges, R&D expense, shipping charges, advertising/marketing costs, commissions to the sales reps that sell to their big major accounts, whining and dining their accounts. Do you think Samsung just gets an order from Verizon, AT&T, etc over the internet for 10 million units without paying a sale rep a commission and the rep taking the accounts out to expensive dinners, etc. Dream on. There is a cost of sales associated with these things. if they sold most of their product on-line direct to each customer at full retail, they MIGHT make a little profit on these types of devices. Do you understand how a mfg costs things out? a REAL company that manages their business properly has a product line and they treat it and measure it like a separate business, if you will with it's own P&L statements to see if a specific product made any money. How many phone models does Samsung have? 160 some odd phones. That's just a TON of product to keep track of, some they make money off of until they have to start discounting them to make a sale. It also depends on what kinds of sales spiffs and other concessions they give large resellers, which they do. Samsung was handing out $25 Spiff checks to reseller reps when the S3 hit, that comes off the profit margin of a product. Lots of things to figure out whether or not they make any profit on a particular product.
What phones do you think that Samsung is selling at a loss?
Phones don't have to cost much to produce, and they don't need to make hundreds of dollars each to turn a profit. Heck, Nokia just introduced the following feature phone for $20... and still makes 30% profit.
As for smartphones, with modern all-in-one chips, building one has become like building smart toys. Almost anyone can do it.
There are dozens (if not hundreds) of small manufacturers in places like China and India, who build and sell smartphones for under $100... some of whom have become multi-million dollar companies, like Xiaomi, which is known as "The Apple of the East".
Interestingly, Xiaomi introduced a (4.3" 720p display, 2GB RAM) $320 smartphone last April in multiple colors:
Local companies like those are the competition that both Samsung and Apple really have to contend with.
You think a MFG can survive on 30% gross profit when they are making hardware? Well, if you have that mentality, you piss off your shareholders. In the hardware game, you have to have at LEAST 37 to 40% gross profits, if not more. In the software only, they typically get around 90% gross profit since the cost of goods is essentially the price of pressing a CD/DVD and some little packaging, but now they are going digital download so the cost of goods is nothing, so they just have their normal SG&A/R&D expense.. But 30% gross margin will probably yield after tax profits, maybe 1% to 10% which isn't that much net profit. Institutional shareholders that can drive the stock price up want to see some decent profits, otherwise they don't buy your stock, the stock price doesn't do much and you as the CEO might have to pack your bags and go elsewhere. Apple does, as a business, overall about 37% and the analysts bitch and complain about that not being high enough profit margin. They SHOULD be looking at getting 40%, consistently from their entire product line, and being able to Net around 25 to maybe 30%. That's a well managed hardware mfg. If you look at Apple, they like making 30% profit margin on iTunes stuff, but there really isn't much that they do to sell it, it's kind of just being a reseller that passes the product from one hand to another, but their hardware, they HAVE to make more like 40% or more since they discount the product to resellers. So if Apple sells a $3000 computer to a reseller, they only really get around $2500 or so because the reseller has to mark it up at least 10% or so to make it worth their while, so depending on whether the product sells direct through the on-line Apple Store or a physical Apple Store or reseller will dictate how much profit margin they have on the product. Look at what Chip mfg make on their products. Intel, for example, had gross sales of $53 Bill, cost of goods was $20 BIl, so their profit margin was a LOT more than 30%, but they retained, after SG&A, Taxes, etc. $11 Bil which is about 20% and some analysts would like to see higher profits. Hardware mfg can't survive on 30% gross profit on hardware sales..
Do you have a finance background? I do. Have you ever looked that annual reports of different types of companies in different market sectors (hardware mfg, software mfg, retail store chains, etc.) to see what the industry does compared to what a specific company does in terms of profit margins, etc.? 30% gross margin is low for a hardware mfg making computer products.
Comments
It's really "don't be evil", but since 'do no evil' is distinct from that, it's quite possible they're interpreting their slogan to mean that doing evil acts doesn't imply being evil.
Or, "Oh, you thought it was 'don't be evil'? No no, it's 'Doughn tbeah eaffil". The person who thought that up spoke Scottish Gaelic, you see."
You think I begrudge Hyundai for marketing a family sedan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
You think I begrudge Hyundai for marketing a family sedan?
I did not think it was possible to pretend to be ignorant and bombastic at the same time. This takes talent. Great job.
No, if it came out that way I apologize. I was replying to someone who likes Omega watches. I just so happen to have someone in my family who works directly for them. Their normally not cheap watches. He has a lot of demo's that he gives away to us as Christmas and birthday presents. I was just adding that if anyone is looking for one I can put them in touch directly with Omega. No profit will be made from this, it was a nice thing that I thought someone would appreciate.
I wasn't trying to impress, we get them for free as presents as in no money. I was replying to a post about the person liking Omega watches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
This is not that big a deal. They cited a report without digging into the method of analysis. Quite common.
Except that Google could have cited figures from their own sales and activation data. Nexus is a Google Product and they should have exact sales data. Rather you choose to cite a research data!
It's like asking 10 persons about your weight and then average it to get your wight when just standing on the weight machine would have given you the fact.
But, Google was not looking for fact here, they wanted a favorable figure, wasn't they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
I wasn't trying to impress, we get them for free as presents as in no money. I was replying to a post about the person liking Omega watches.
...and comparing Apple products to the Swiss watch industry, both are besieged by a sea of cheap knock offs.
Who cares if Chinese companies buy up bankrupt Swiss watch companies solely so they can use the name on cheap junk.
I equate Android to this.
Corum wasn't bankrupt, quite the contrary, Hon Kwak Lung paid a fortune for the company and will continue the tradition of fine watches, nothing cheap will come off of their assembly line, if they do produce crap watches they will fail miserably as we have an abundance of fine watch makers. Corum is also one of the smallest and newest watch makers in Switzerland and isn't considered one of our top watch producers. Hon's plans is to increase production and manufacturing facilities to compete worldwide and will keep producing in Switzerland, that's why he was able to acquire the company in the first place, the government would have never aloud the sale otherwise. There was also an agreement that if he produces the watches in China he will have to forgo the made in Switzerland stamp or any other marker with Swiss on it. We are also one of the wealthiest countries in the world with one of the lowest unemployment rates, if one of our prized watch manufactures was on the verge of bankruptcy the government would have stepped in to bale them out in a heart beat. An example of how Switzerland protects our people is they pay farmers not to sale their land and buys any food that doesn't sale just so we don't become dependent on foreign food and to protect the landscape. Antonio Calce, CEO of Corum wants to become a world player in the watch business as well and he couldn't have done that on in his own so he pushed for the merger, he will continue working as the CEO and no one will loose their jobs over this purchase. This is partly due to our laws that any foreign company must have at least a 70% Swiss work force, that and there is only 130 employees currently working at Corum. It really is a tiny Ma & Pa type setup, they craft all watches by hand.
Not all Android devices are crap. There have been some pretty fantastically built, quality products over the years. For example a Motorola Xoom II, Sony Tablet Z, Asus Transformer Pad Infinity, Asus Eee Pad Slider, Toshiba AT200, ect., easily match the hardware quality of any iPad. There are plenty of people who enjoy using Android and all of it's benefits. Yes I said benefits, working with remote servers, streaming video from a computer, playing almost every codec there is, file-manager, apps that talk to each other, customization, widgets, multiple users, ect. I also enjoy my iPad very, very much, the music creation apps alone for instance are bar none the coolest I have ever played with but Apple controls way to much of what I can and cannot due and that just sucks. Why can't I have a filemanager, it's Unix, when an iPad is Jail-broken I can see the complete HD tree. Why can't I change the default web-browser, MS was sued and lost because of that a few years back. I don't want to see all of my apps, why can't I have a custom home screen where I can populate with what I want like; widgets, notes, or just a big clock because I like a clean look. Every OS has it's upside and downside, saying that you dislike Android is absolutely fine but calling it a cheap knockoff isn't. Everything that Apple has done in iOS has been done before, granted not as visually stunning but none the less nothing we haven't seen before, icons in a grid, heck icons, notifications, what, please tell me what is so revolutionary that it can't be used on another platform because it is so sacred to Apple. Do you really think that Android 4.3 looks exactly like iOS 6 or even 7 because I see very little similarities anymore. If no one copied ideas off of each other the computer industry would still be using ASCII for everything. When is copying a good thing and not a bad thing or visa versa. Remember it was cheap IBM clones that put computers to where we are at now. If IBM went after everyone the way Apple does the computer landscape would be a lot different now and a lot more expensive. What would have happened if Xerox gave Apple the finger all those years back and just sat on the GUI. How long would it have taken for Apple or MS to come up with a GUI derived OS, 5, 8 years.
I honestly like, iOS, Android, Windows X, Unix, Linux, Symbian, Plan 9, OSX, Risc OS, BeOS, OS, OS2 or eComStation, Amiga, MeegOS, ect. I understand your passion for Apple's OS's, their wonderful to use, intuitive, fast, unique but they've come to light because of other peoples ideas. Nothing was made by just one person or one company, it's an accumulation of technological ideas past down over the years. If you condemn one OS, you'll have to condemn them all because they all come from similar backgrounds.
Please be nice when you tear me a new one and you will it's inevitable, I don't mean to belittle Apple's achievements in any way, they have done great things but so has the competition. Remember, people design these things, not corporations.
Apple is currently at a significant low point in their release cycle for basically their entire line-up. For the iPad this is contrasted witha relative high point in their release cycle ago to evoke a narrative of how "little change" there was in "year-over-year iPad sales". But unless the release cycle has a 12-month periodicy this is an incredibly crude measure of the relative appeal of the iPad brand over time. A better KPI is the number of iPads sold in a predetermined period following launch. Data which (assuming no supply constraints) clearly demonstrates that each new iPad is selling to more customers than the last.
None of this means Apple are losing appeal or ground. Clearly they are just accruing potential energy on future sales. iOS 7, iPad 5, iPhone 5S and iPhone 5C. In September these sales numbers are going to be measured on the richter scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks
I'm concerned by the media's willingness to engage in such a biased dialogue. It's amazing how quickly "unit sales" has displaced "profit" as the barometer of success in the tech media. Is this because it's the only metric by which Android could be determined to be a success? Or perhaps because "profit" is hard to quantify when Google's revenue model is subsidised by a personal information economy and advertising revenue?
Apple is currently at a significant low point in their release cycle for basically their entire line-up. For the iPad this is contrasted witha relative high point in their release cycle ago to evoke a narrative of how "little change" there was in "year-over-year iPad sales". But unless the release cycle has a 12-month periodicy this is an incredibly crude measure of the relative appeal of the iPad brand over time. A better KPI is the number of iPads sold in a predetermined period following launch. Data which (assuming no supply constraints) clearly demonstrates that each new iPad is selling to more customers than the last.
None of this means Apple are losing appeal or ground. Clearly they are just accruing potential energy on future sales. iOS 7, iPad 5, iPhone 5S and iPhone 5C. In September these sales numbers are going to be measured on the richter scale.
I sure hope Apple releases a 4.5+ screen iPhone to go after that market sometime in the near future. I wish it were this year, but it's probably next year. THAT would definitely increase their market share.
Samsung buys market share by spitting out some old GIngerbread phone that's sold for $150 list and discounted down to $99 for the unlocked version, but that device makes ZERO profit. It's a lost leader, product dump rather than to make any money. It's a deceptive practice to try to buy market share and it usually catches up with these companies.
Apple is getting far more acceptance in the Enterprise and Educational markets which is a VERY stable user base as they don't switch platforms like an individual might.
I personally think that there will be a trend in the Android and Windows platform where there will be some mfg getting out of that business due to lack of profits and/or sales. It wouldn't surprise me if HTC went out, since all they make are smartphones. What I laugh about are these hole in the wall Chinese Android and WIndows OEM tablets where you never heard of the company and they sell a product that costs $60. It's laughable at how much garbage is actually sold by these incredibly cheap OEM mfg. Do people buy them? I guess. But they are the type of product that gets thrown away within a month. Kind of like those stores that sell the Rolex knockoffs that stop working shortly after you buy it. The schlock of the industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
Corum wasn't bankrupt, quite the contrary, Hon Kwak Lung paid a fortune for the company and will continue the tradition of fine watches, nothing cheap will come off of their assembly line, if they do produce crap watches they will fail miserably as we have an abundance of fine watch makers. Corum is also one of the smallest and newest watch makers in Switzerland and isn't considered one of our top watch producers. Hon's plans is to increase production and manufacturing facilities to compete worldwide and will keep producing in Switzerland, that's why he was able to acquire the company in the first place, the government would have never aloud the sale otherwise. There was also an agreement that if he produces the watches in China he will have to forgo the made in Switzerland stamp or any other marker with Swiss on it. We are also one of the wealthiest countries in the world with one of the lowest unemployment rates, if one of our prized watch manufactures was on the verge of bankruptcy the government would have stepped in to bale them out in a heart beat. An example of how Switzerland protects our people is they pay farmers not to sale their land and buys any food that doesn't sale just so we don't become dependent on foreign food and to protect the landscape. Antonio Calce, CEO of Corum wants to become a world player in the watch business as well and he couldn't have done that on in his own so he pushed for the merger, he will continue working as the CEO and no one will loose their jobs over this purchase. This is partly due to our laws that any foreign company must have at least a 70% Swiss work force, that and there is only 130 employees currently working at Corum. It really is a tiny Ma & Pa type setup, they craft all watches by hand.
Not all Android devices are crap. There have been some pretty fantastically built, quality products over the years. For example a Motorola Xoom II, Sony Tablet Z, Asus Transformer Pad Infinity, Asus Eee Pad Slider, Toshiba AT200, ect., easily match the hardware quality of any iPad. There are plenty of people who enjoy using Android and all of it's benefits. Yes I said benefits, working with remote servers, streaming video from a computer, playing almost every codec there is, file-manager, apps that talk to each other, customization, widgets, multiple users, ect. I also enjoy my iPad very, very much, the music creation apps alone for instance are bar none the coolest I have ever played with but Apple controls way to much of what I can and cannot due and that just sucks. Why can't I have a filemanager, it's Unix, when an iPad is Jail-broken I can see the complete HD tree. Why can't I change the default web-browser, MS was sued and lost because of that a few years back. I don't want to see all of my apps, why can't I have a custom home screen where I can populate with what I want like; widgets, notes, or just a big clock because I like a clean look. Every OS has it's upside and downside, saying that you dislike Android is absolutely fine but calling it a cheap knockoff isn't. Everything that Apple has done in iOS has been done before, granted not as visually stunning but none the less nothing we haven't seen before, icons in a grid, heck icons, notifications, what, please tell me what is so revolutionary that it can't be used on another platform because it is so sacred to Apple. Do you really think that Android 4.3 looks exactly like iOS 6 or even 7 because I see very little similarities anymore. If no one copied ideas off of each other the computer industry would still be using ASCII for everything. When is copying a good thing and not a bad thing or visa versa. Remember it was cheap IBM clones that put computers to where we are at now. If IBM went after everyone the way Apple does the computer landscape would be a lot different now and a lot more expensive. What would have happened if Xerox gave Apple the finger all those years back and just sat on the GUI. How long would it have taken for Apple or MS to come up with a GUI derived OS, 5, 8 years.
I honestly like, iOS, Android, Windows X, Unix, Linux, Symbian, Plan 9, OSX, Risc OS, BeOS, OS, OS2 or eComStation, Amiga, MeegOS, ect. I understand your passion for Apple's OS's, their wonderful to use, intuitive, fast, unique but they've come to light because of other peoples ideas. Nothing was made by just one person or one company, it's an accumulation of technological ideas past down over the years. If you condemn one OS, you'll have to condemn them all because they all come from similar backgrounds.
Please be nice when you tear me a new one and you will it's inevitable, I don't mean to belittle Apple's achievements in any way, they have done great things but so has the competition. Remember, people design these things, not corporations.
to me, it's all the same $HIT.
What I don't like about the Android platform is that you can't walk into any store and find all of the Android devices running the latest OS. Even the top of the line Flagship samsung doesn't come with the latest OS. It runs 4.2.2 and 4.3 just came out a couple of days ago and it will take about 6 or 7 months for Samscum to release 4.3. Heck, it takes Samscum 6 to 7 months to update their S3 phones with 4.2.2. To me, the entire Android OEM platform is nothing but selling products that don't run and probably will never run the latest OS for very long. The S4 is only 2 months old and it doesn't run 4.3. WTF? That's a problem with the inherent business model.
Most of the OSs you mentioned failed in the market other than Android, OS X, iOS, and Windows. But based on the lack of sales, Windows RT is a failure, almost as bad as Windows Vista. If the company develops the software properly and the hardware that supports is made well and there is a good support system and industry support, it can succeed, but each model has it's flaws.
How would you like it if you ran a company with 50,000 employees and you standardized on IBM computers and you got notice from IBM that they sold off their PC unit to Lenovo and now you have to deal with Lenovo which has ZERO track record and you just don't like doing business with a foreign company? Same thing happened with Compaq, only they now have to deal with HP.
Look at what's going on with HP and Dell? If they could find a buyer for their PC units, they'd sell since they don't make any profits. NONE of the PC mfg are making decent profits. NONE OF THEM. Samsung is only making decent profits because they make most of the guts inside, but they don't develop Android OS, do they? NOPE.
Every choice with the brand of hardware and OS has pros and cons, it's just deciding what you are willing to deal with. I like the one stop shop approach as it has worked for me. I would have hated having to use Windows should Apple gone out of business, but they didn't. They came back and they have enough cash to last them decades, plus they know how to manage their business, be profitable and maintain their level of quality. Going with whomever is the cheapest doesn't create the right business environment for me, because I can't be sure if they'll still be in business. I am loyal to the companies I choose to do business with, until they prove that they can't fulfill my needs. I don't like having to switch brands for most things I buy. That's not what I call good business practice. I may not like everything Apple does, but I assure you, I can submit feedback and they usually get around to doing most of the requests i have, as long as the request is a reasonable request. THey haven't screwed up enough for me to switch. Microsoft has. Once they screw up to the point where I switch, I RARELY go back. I just have a tough time buying an Android product when I can't buy something that has the latest OS on it and can't get updates in a timely manner. Plus, Google isn't a IT based company. They make their money from ad revenue and ad clicks. They have proven they are running open loop by how they manage their products. Not a; reliable company for me to rely on.
You're not a fan of this type of thing yet in most threads, you post something to denigrate Apple. Recall the stories about how many cracked iPhone screens you've seen at a party, how many non-iPads you've seen on the trading floor, how the Nokia Lumia is so much better than an iPhone, going on about the limitations of iOS, how suddenly because Apple decided to use AMD in the new Mac Pro, the CUDA software you don't even have won't run anywhere near as fast as on non-Apple hardware, how Apple hasn't really invented anything and is just riding off other people's innovations.
This isn't a bashing article. Google reported false information and they got called on it. On many occasions you claim to not be tied into one particular manufacturer, the implication being that Apple users just buy everything Apple no matter what but if that's the case then why have a problem with Google's falsehoods being corrected? If you defend everything so long as it's not Apple, that's not impartial.
MS had a 90%+ marketshare, Apple doesn't. Also Apple adheres to open standards, MS didn't.
I'd rather remove the widgets from Android and just get straight to the apps. I assume that's possible to do. OS designers make choices about functionality and design. If they added widgets, you'd be one of the first to suggest they are just playing catch up to Android. There's always suggestions Apple should do things the same as Android and when they do anything that looks remotely similar like notifications or design, people criticize them for it.
More Apple bashing. Android wasn't designed for a touch UI, it had no software keyboard. The appearance and behaviour of the OS was taken from Apple almost immediately after Apple showed it off. Apple's operating systems are also heavily based on NeXT, it's not just some off-the-shelf unix. The first versions of the internet were developed on NeXT OS:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2011/oct/16/tim-berners-lee-steve-jobs
"Inventor of the world wide web describes how the Unix-based NeXT Computer he unpacked in 1990 came ready to run - unlike most of the Unix boxes he had to deal with"
You can dismiss their input to the computing world as simple 'repackaging' but it would be doing them a disservice. If you think the computers, smartphones and tablets you use every day would have been the same without Apple, you are very much mistaken and they've earned the success they have, especially with the iPad. When Google misreports numbers to feed people's misguided attempts at dethroning Apple, there's nothing wrong with setting the record straight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
You're not a fan of this type of thing yet in most threads, you post something to denigrate Apple. Recall the stories about how many cracked iPhone screens you've seen at a party, how many non-iPads you've seen on the trading floor, how the Nokia Lumia is so much better than an iPhone, going on about the limitations of iOS, how suddenly because Apple decided to use AMD in the new Mac Pro, the CUDA software you don't even have won't run anywhere near as fast as on non-Apple hardware, how Apple hasn't really invented anything and is just riding off other people's innovations.
This isn't a bashing article. Google reported false information and they got called on it. On many occasions you claim to not be tied into one particular manufacturer, the implication being that Apple users just buy everything Apple no matter what but if that's the case then why have a problem with Google's falsehoods being corrected? If you defend everything so long as it's not Apple, that's not impartial.
MS had a 90%+ marketshare, Apple doesn't. Also Apple adheres to open standards, MS didn't.
I'd rather remove the widgets from Android and just get straight to the apps. I assume that's possible to do. OS designers make choices about functionality and design. If they added widgets, you'd be one of the first to suggest they are just playing catch up to Android. There's always suggestions Apple should do things the same as Android and when they do anything that looks remotely similar like notifications or design, people criticize them for it.
More Apple bashing. Android wasn't designed for a touch UI, it had no software keyboard. The appearance and behaviour of the OS was taken from Apple almost immediately after Apple showed it off. Apple's operating systems are also heavily based on NeXT, it's not just some off-the-shelf unix. The first versions of the internet were developed on NeXT OS:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2011/oct/16/tim-berners-lee-steve-jobs
"Inventor of the world wide web describes how the Unix-based NeXT Computer he unpacked in 1990 came ready to run - unlike most of the Unix boxes he had to deal with"
You can dismiss their input to the computing world as simple 'repackaging' but it would be doing them a disservice. If you think the computers, smartphones and tablets you use every day would have been the same without Apple, you are very much mistaken and they've earned the success they have, especially with the iPad. When Google misreports numbers to feed people's misguided attempts at dethroning Apple, there's nothing wrong with setting the record straight.
Don't waste your time with Relic. She obviously doesn't like Apple and can't seem to understand that this site is an Apple-centric site. She likes collecting gadgets.
She doesn't realize that if Android OS kept up with it's original path of having a smartphone with a physical keyboard, that Android would be no where, because as soon as the iPhone came out, Android changed direction and tried to emulate an iOS device. Pathetic really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
Samsung buys market share by spitting out some old GIngerbread phone that's sold for $150 list and discounted down to $99 for the unlocked version, but that device makes ZERO profit. It's a lost leader, product dump rather than to make any money. It's a deceptive practice to try to buy market share and it usually catches up with these companies.
What phones do you think that Samsung is selling at a loss?
Phones don't have to cost much to produce, and they don't need to make hundreds of dollars each to turn a profit. Heck, Nokia just introduced the following feature phone for $20... and still makes 30% profit.
As for smartphones, with modern all-in-one chips, building one has become like building smart toys. Almost anyone can do it.
There are dozens (if not hundreds) of small manufacturers in places like China and India, who build and sell smartphones for under $100... some of whom have become multi-million dollar companies, like Xiaomi, which is known as "The Apple of the East".
Interestingly, Xiaomi introduced a (4.3" 720p display, 2GB RAM) $320 smartphone last April in multiple colors:
Local companies like those are the competition that both Samsung and Apple really have to contend with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
What phones do you think that Samsung is selling at a loss?
Phones don't have to cost much to produce, and they don't need to make hundreds of dollars each to turn a profit. Heck, Nokia just introduced the following feature phone for $20... and still makes 30% profit.
As for smartphones, with modern all-in-one chips, building one has become like building smart toys. Almost anyone can do it.
There are dozens (if not hundreds) of small manufacturers in places like China and India, who build and sell smartphones for under $100... some of whom have become multi-million dollar companies, like Xiaomi, which is known as "The Apple of the East".
Interestingly, Xiaomi introduced a (4.3" 720p display, 2GB RAM) $320 smartphone last April in multiple colors:
Local companies like those are the competition that both Samsung and Apple really have to contend with.
I think the Samscum Aspire are selling at a loss. They are $150 List price for an unlocked phone. The resellers discount them down to $99. How much does it cost to mfg the thing, recoup the marketing and R&D, tooling, and shipping charges, warranty returns on that type of product? How much do they sell them to the resellers for? They sell a ton of these $150 list price phones to people that don't have any money. It's got to cost them somewhere in the $50 to $75 range just mfg them, but how much does it cost for tooling, R&D, marketing, absorbing so many under warranty, and shipping costs? That's a break-even or money loosing product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
I think the Samscum Aspire are selling at a loss. They are $150 List price for an unlocked phone. The resellers discount them down to $99. How much does it cost to mfg the thing, recoup the marketing and R&D, tooling, and shipping charges, warranty returns on that type of product? How much do they sell them to the resellers for? They sell a ton of these $150 list price phones to people that don't have any money. It's got to cost them somewhere in the $50 to $75 range just mfg them, but how much does it cost for tooling, R&D, marketing, absorbing so many under warranty, and shipping costs? That's a break-even or money loosing product.
You can't make money on a mobile device that sells for $200 or less unless you have some serious markup. You have so much in shrinkage due to warranty returns/repairs, you have tooling charges, R&D expense, shipping charges, advertising/marketing costs, commissions to the sales reps that sell to their big major accounts, whining and dining their accounts. Do you think Samsung just gets an order from Verizon, AT&T, etc over the internet for 10 million units without paying a sale rep a commission and the rep taking the accounts out to expensive dinners, etc. Dream on. There is a cost of sales associated with these things. if they sold most of their product on-line direct to each customer at full retail, they MIGHT make a little profit on these types of devices. Do you understand how a mfg costs things out? a REAL company that manages their business properly has a product line and they treat it and measure it like a separate business, if you will with it's own P&L statements to see if a specific product made any money. How many phone models does Samsung have? 160 some odd phones. That's just a TON of product to keep track of, some they make money off of until they have to start discounting them to make a sale. It also depends on what kinds of sales spiffs and other concessions they give large resellers, which they do. Samsung was handing out $25 Spiff checks to reseller reps when the S3 hit, that comes off the profit margin of a product. Lots of things to figure out whether or not they make any profit on a particular product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
What phones do you think that Samsung is selling at a loss?
Phones don't have to cost much to produce, and they don't need to make hundreds of dollars each to turn a profit. Heck, Nokia just introduced the following feature phone for $20... and still makes 30% profit.
As for smartphones, with modern all-in-one chips, building one has become like building smart toys. Almost anyone can do it.
There are dozens (if not hundreds) of small manufacturers in places like China and India, who build and sell smartphones for under $100... some of whom have become multi-million dollar companies, like Xiaomi, which is known as "The Apple of the East".
Interestingly, Xiaomi introduced a (4.3" 720p display, 2GB RAM) $320 smartphone last April in multiple colors:
Local companies like those are the competition that both Samsung and Apple really have to contend with.
You think a MFG can survive on 30% gross profit when they are making hardware? Well, if you have that mentality, you piss off your shareholders. In the hardware game, you have to have at LEAST 37 to 40% gross profits, if not more. In the software only, they typically get around 90% gross profit since the cost of goods is essentially the price of pressing a CD/DVD and some little packaging, but now they are going digital download so the cost of goods is nothing, so they just have their normal SG&A/R&D expense.. But 30% gross margin will probably yield after tax profits, maybe 1% to 10% which isn't that much net profit. Institutional shareholders that can drive the stock price up want to see some decent profits, otherwise they don't buy your stock, the stock price doesn't do much and you as the CEO might have to pack your bags and go elsewhere. Apple does, as a business, overall about 37% and the analysts bitch and complain about that not being high enough profit margin. They SHOULD be looking at getting 40%, consistently from their entire product line, and being able to Net around 25 to maybe 30%. That's a well managed hardware mfg. If you look at Apple, they like making 30% profit margin on iTunes stuff, but there really isn't much that they do to sell it, it's kind of just being a reseller that passes the product from one hand to another, but their hardware, they HAVE to make more like 40% or more since they discount the product to resellers. So if Apple sells a $3000 computer to a reseller, they only really get around $2500 or so because the reseller has to mark it up at least 10% or so to make it worth their while, so depending on whether the product sells direct through the on-line Apple Store or a physical Apple Store or reseller will dictate how much profit margin they have on the product. Look at what Chip mfg make on their products. Intel, for example, had gross sales of $53 Bill, cost of goods was $20 BIl, so their profit margin was a LOT more than 30%, but they retained, after SG&A, Taxes, etc. $11 Bil which is about 20% and some analysts would like to see higher profits. Hardware mfg can't survive on 30% gross profit on hardware sales..
Do you have a finance background? I do. Have you ever looked that annual reports of different types of companies in different market sectors (hardware mfg, software mfg, retail store chains, etc.) to see what the industry does compared to what a specific company does in terms of profit margins, etc.? 30% gross margin is low for a hardware mfg making computer products.