So if Samsung alone is selling 2/3 of Apple's volume in high-end phones, can we all finally agree that high-end Android phones combined outsell the iPhone?
The rest of Android would also need to sell 1/3 of Apple's volume. Do they?
Do you really think two years old smartphone iPhone (4/4S) is still high-end ? Samsung high-ends smartphones price-tag (Galaxy S4 / Note 3) are comparable with Apple iPhone's price-tag 600$ .
I'm not splitting the hairs, I'm just analyzing the market and phone performance's correctly without passion. Apple Insider just gave you the facts to say "Samsung outsells Apple even on premium segment..."
Apple has a strategy to keep selling old-phone like 4S in order to attract budget-conscious buyers. It's a good strategy ! And beeing second in premium market is still a good position.... no matter what.
Hopefully, Apple Q4 sales should allow Apple to be soon again number one in premium market segment, at least for a quarter .
That Samsung ad that touts how many Galaxy series and Notes sold is very reminiscent of McDonalds boasting that they serve 1,000,000,000 burgers yearly on their marques. Samsung is very McDonalds-esqe as in people do buy some of McDonalds premium 5 dollar burgers, but most buy dollar cheeseburgers or the big mac.
I personally chuckle that the Snapdragon is a Quad-core CPU with the new Adreno 330 GPGPU SoC running at 1Ghz clock ticking higher, and more than twice the system RAM only
TOO LOSE IN PERFORMANCE ACROSS THE BOARD.
When Apple jumps up in RAM [if reports are correct] to triple that of their current levels, with an Quad Core A8 [or later], while still being finicky on wasting energy perhaps then people will figure out that the talent amassed at Apple is top of the stack.
Why wait for Apple to come out with a quad-core processor and more RAM?
C|Net already published benchmarks showing the 5S creaming everything in the premium Android camp that uses quad-core and more RAM.
That's the advantage Android has, they can jump ship to whatever hardware platforms offers best in class. (Note : I did not see any battery usage benchmarks on the baytrail yet, anyone ?)
You are failing to comprehend that "high end" here basically means iPhone 4 or better.
Most of Samsung's "smartphones" are $100-$300 basic phones barely running Android and not capable of using apps or getting upgrades.
We aren't splitting hairs between "very latest model" and "year or two old"
Do you really think two years old smartphone iPhone (4/4S) is still high-end ? Samsung high-ends smartphones price-tag (Galaxy S4 / Note 3) are comparable with Apple iPhone's price-tag 600$ .
I'm not splitting the hairs, I'm just analyzing the market and phone performance's correctly without passion. Apple Insider just gave you the facts to say "Samsung outsells Apple even on premium segment..."
Apple has a strategy to keep selling old-phone like 4S in order to attract budget-conscious buyers. It's a good strategy ! And beeing second in premium market is still a good position.... no matter what.
Hopefully, Apple Q4 sales should allow Apple to be soon again number one in premium market segment, at least for a quarter .
So we can estimate sales on Q3 2013 : iPhone high-end smartphone sales (iPhone 5 ) are 16,22 millions to be compare with Samsung high-end smartphone sales at 27,1 millions.....
A GSII is "high end" just like an iPhone 4S would be. You can't count all Galaxy S models and discard the iPhone 4/4S/5/5C models.
Apple still makes more profit selling less phones. That's the actual point of this article.
That's just about it. Android sells a lot of really low-end stuff to lower-income and emerging market consumers. Nothing wrong with that, but that's not the segment in which Apple competes.
People can chase, and brag about, market shares all they want, but it amounts to a hill of beans in terms of what actually matters. As someone pointed out, it's like McDonalds claiming to have sold a gazillion billon burgers.
My only trouble with this article is, it appears to state the obvious. It's possible that I am missing some larger subtlety here!
Do you consider Apple's acquisition of Intrinsity & PA-semi as a business strategy or tactic?
The strategy was to develop their own IP as much as possible to maintain a competitive advantage as opposed to the more common strategy of leveraging COTS components to reduce R&D cost.
One operational objective selected in the execution this strategy was to develop their own ARM SoC IP.
The acquisition of Intrinsity and PA-Semi were tactical actions to meet that operational objective.
He's right in that acquisitions are Tactical to meet some Operational goal that supports some Strategy.
However, it is highly unlikely that anybody in the room didn't understand this. The strategy was clearly stated:
The strategy is to further diversify from "its core consumer electronics" business because of increased competition and market saturation.
The operational objective is to find a new field it can dominate.
The tactic is to acquire companies outside of their current target areas to jumpstart themselves in these new fields. In other words...not just companies like Sharp that Samsung Electronics has invested in the past. This isn't much different than the acquisition of Intrinsity and PA Semi for Apple.
I think that the strategy is a bit obvious though given that the overarching company already makes everything from washing machines to smart phones to flash ram to cars (Renault Samsung Motors - Samsung started it, sold it to Renault but still owns 20%), heavy construction equipment, ships (Samsung Heavy Industries part of the Samsung Group), life insurance and theme parks.
It's kinda their default go-to strategy whenever some growth area peters out. Find a new one.
I think the point here is (and to use an automotive market analogy): comparing sales numbers of Samsung to Apple without a breakdown is like comparing General Motors to BMW. Sure GM overall may have sold more cars than BMW, but without a breakdown, we cannot assume that Cadillac was better selling than BMW; and that's exactly what Samsung is doing here. Comparing Apples to Apples + Lemons without differentiating between the two. Anyone who has been following this from the beginning, years ago, will remember when Apple used to pummel Samsung in sales #s until one day Samsung got wise/sick of it/shamed and sent out a press release indicating they will no longer be providing sales breakdowns by model.
(Please forgive my example of comparing GM and Samsung, the two companies are on completely different levels of class, and unlike Samsung, GM has worked through R&D to position itself strongly as one of the best auto maker out there right now. But in terms of low end vs high end, the example stands.)
Which 2013 Samsung Android smartphones can't run apps? Do you have any sales data for these models? Models like the S4 mini certainly can run apps.
You're making assertions without backing them up with any specifics or data.
example :
galaxy Y still sold in EU, dont know in US.
That is a 2012 phone and yet :
Android 2.3 gingerbread
3" 320x240 beyond awfull quality
single core 833 Mhz
2 Mb camera
Battery given for 9h, you are lucky if you get half of that.
Sold by the boatfull to youngers as it cost only 70€ contract free.
And it is not the worse "(not-so)smartphone" sold by Samesong.
The Ace 2 is actually pretty decent but cost twice that price despite using 4 years outdated components and being slower in use than a 3GS. And the lumia 520 toast it for an equivalent price.
Acquiring companies is not in itself a strategy, is it? You first come up with a strategy, and then you acquire companies (or don't, as needed) to achieve it. Acquisitions are a tactic.
If I was a shareholder of this company and went to an investors' meeting and they said the strategy was to "make more acquisitions" I would be mortified.
Do you consider Apple's acquisition of Intrinsity & PA-semi as a business strategy or tactic?
His point is that it is a tactic. The strategy appears to have been to move to a custom SoC to get and maintain an advantage against those using off the shelf components.
Acquiring those companies was one way to realize that strategy by bringing design in-house. They could have achieved that goal by agreements with a vendor for custom design for their sole use or even just started staffing up with experts in the field to build a new team. For all we know they may have approached PA-semi about deal for SoC design and then figured out it would be better to acquire them. I suspect the strategy was to get it in-house all along due to Apple's secrecy, but made the possibilities much broader in response to the context of this thread.
Either way, we don't actually know what Apple's strategy is as all we see are the results of their execution towards that strategy.
But... but... but Android is winning and Apple is doomed. If Samsung were an American company sitting in Apple's place right now they'd probably have a share price of around $2000. Samsung would be the perfect company for Wall Street investors when it comes to having to have the highest amount of market share possible. Samsung believes in beating rivals to death and eliminating all competition. It would be great to be a shareholder of a company like that. There would never be any worries about any smaller companies coming up and taking away market share because they'd quickly go out of business.
Apple is stupid to just let Samsung do as they please. Apple could have been in the top position in the smartphone and tablet industry and they just let Samsung take it away in about a six months time-frame and Apple shareholders paid dearly for that blunder. Apple still hasn't recovered those lost tens of billions of market cap. Now with Samsung openly gunning for them, Apple shareholders might as well just give up hoping for an Apple rebound.
Apple is simply going to continue on its own path of building high%u2013quality products for the elite and Samsung is going to drown Apple with a massive flood of devices aimed at every consumer on the planet. It will ruin Apple shareholders and drive potential investors away from Apple in droves. Apple will be lucky to be worth anything when this war is over.
Comments
Apple still makes more profit selling less phones. That's the actual point of this article.
Corrections IS Dilger. New members probably don't catch on to that right away.
Fixed that for AI.
So if Samsung alone is selling 2/3 of Apple's volume in high-end phones, can we all finally agree that high-end Android phones combined outsell the iPhone?
The rest of Android would also need to sell 1/3 of Apple's volume. Do they?
Most of Samsung's "smartphones" are $100-$300 basic phones barely running Android and not capable of using apps or getting upgrades.
Which 2013 Samsung Android smartphones can't run apps? Do you have any sales data for these models? Models like the S4 mini certainly can run apps.
You're making assertions without backing them up with any specifics or data.
Do you really think two years old smartphone iPhone (4/4S) is still high-end ? Samsung high-ends smartphones price-tag (Galaxy S4 / Note 3) are comparable with Apple iPhone's price-tag 600$ .
I'm not splitting the hairs, I'm just analyzing the market and phone performance's correctly without passion. Apple Insider just gave you the facts to say "Samsung outsells Apple even on premium segment..."
Apple has a strategy to keep selling old-phone like 4S in order to attract budget-conscious buyers. It's a good strategy ! And beeing second in premium market is still a good position.... no matter what.
Hopefully, Apple Q4 sales should allow Apple to be soon again number one in premium market segment, at least for a quarter
Two posts, a troll in development!
I've used an S4 and I didn't get the impression it was "smart phone". I guess somethings are subjective as to me it was far inferior to an iPhone 4s.
I personally chuckle that the Snapdragon is a Quad-core CPU with the new Adreno 330 GPGPU SoC running at 1Ghz clock ticking higher, and more than twice the system RAM only
TOO LOSE IN PERFORMANCE ACROSS THE BOARD.
When Apple jumps up in RAM [if reports are correct] to triple that of their current levels, with an Quad Core A8 [or later], while still being finicky on wasting energy perhaps then people will figure out that the talent amassed at Apple is top of the stack.
Why wait for Apple to come out with a quad-core processor and more RAM?
C|Net already published benchmarks showing the 5S creaming everything in the premium Android camp that uses quad-core and more RAM.
http://reviews.cnet.com/iphone-5s/
Of course, the Fandroids are crying foul and bias, but the facts are facts.
Why wait for Apple to come out with a quad-core processor and more RAM?
C|Net already published benchmarks showing the 5S creaming everything in the premium Android camp that uses quad-core and more RAM.
http://reviews.cnet.com/iphone-5s/
Or they simply jump ship to Intel baytrail z3770 and its successors which currently trump the A7 in most benchmarks.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review/5
That's the advantage Android has, they can jump ship to whatever hardware platforms offers best in class. (Note : I did not see any battery usage benchmarks on the baytrail yet, anyone ?)
Wow. Way to miss the point....
A GSII is "high end" just like an iPhone 4S would be. You can't count all Galaxy S models and discard the iPhone 4/4S/5/5C models.
That's just about it. Android sells a lot of really low-end stuff to lower-income and emerging market consumers. Nothing wrong with that, but that's not the segment in which Apple competes.
People can chase, and brag about, market shares all they want, but it amounts to a hill of beans in terms of what actually matters. As someone pointed out, it's like McDonalds claiming to have sold a gazillion billon burgers.
My only trouble with this article is, it appears to state the obvious. It's possible that I am missing some larger subtlety here!
Do you consider Apple's acquisition of Intrinsity & PA-semi as a business strategy or tactic?
One operational objective selected in the execution this strategy was to develop their own ARM SoC IP.
The acquisition of Intrinsity and PA-Semi were tactical actions to meet that operational objective.
He's right in that acquisitions are Tactical to meet some Operational goal that supports some Strategy.
However, it is highly unlikely that anybody in the room didn't understand this. The strategy was clearly stated:
I think that the strategy is a bit obvious though given that the overarching company already makes everything from washing machines to smart phones to flash ram to cars (Renault Samsung Motors - Samsung started it, sold it to Renault but still owns 20%), heavy construction equipment, ships (Samsung Heavy Industries part of the Samsung Group), life insurance and theme parks.
It's kinda their default go-to strategy whenever some growth area peters out. Find a new one.
Anyone who has been following this from the beginning, years ago, will remember when Apple used to pummel Samsung in sales #s until one day Samsung got wise/sick of it/shamed and sent out a press release indicating they will no longer be providing sales breakdowns by model.
(Please forgive my example of comparing GM and Samsung, the two companies are on completely different levels of class, and unlike Samsung, GM has worked through R&D to position itself strongly as one of the best auto maker out there right now. But in terms of low end vs high end, the example stands.)
Which 2013 Samsung Android smartphones can't run apps? Do you have any sales data for these models? Models like the S4 mini certainly can run apps.
You're making assertions without backing them up with any specifics or data.
example :
galaxy Y still sold in EU, dont know in US.
That is a 2012 phone and yet :
Android 2.3 gingerbread
3" 320x240 beyond awfull quality
single core 833 Mhz
2 Mb camera
Battery given for 9h, you are lucky if you get half of that.
Sold by the boatfull to youngers as it cost only 70€ contract free.
And it is not the worse "(not-so)smartphone" sold by Samesong.
The Ace 2 is actually pretty decent but cost twice that price despite using 4 years outdated components and being slower in use than a 3GS. And the lumia 520 toast it for an equivalent price.
Acquiring companies is not in itself a strategy, is it? You first come up with a strategy, and then you acquire companies (or don't, as needed) to achieve it. Acquisitions are a tactic.
If I was a shareholder of this company and went to an investors' meeting and they said the strategy was to "make more acquisitions" I would be mortified.
Do you consider Apple's acquisition of Intrinsity & PA-semi as a business strategy or tactic?
His point is that it is a tactic. The strategy appears to have been to move to a custom SoC to get and maintain an advantage against those using off the shelf components.
Acquiring those companies was one way to realize that strategy by bringing design in-house. They could have achieved that goal by agreements with a vendor for custom design for their sole use or even just started staffing up with experts in the field to build a new team. For all we know they may have approached PA-semi about deal for SoC design and then figured out it would be better to acquire them. I suspect the strategy was to get it in-house all along due to Apple's secrecy, but made the possibilities much broader in response to the context of this thread.
Either way, we don't actually know what Apple's strategy is as all we see are the results of their execution towards that strategy.
A GSII is "high end" just like an iPhone 4S would be. You can't count all Galaxy S models and discard the iPhone 4/4S/5/5C models.
You can if you're trolling.
Apple is stupid to just let Samsung do as they please. Apple could have been in the top position in the smartphone and tablet industry and they just let Samsung take it away in about a six months time-frame and Apple shareholders paid dearly for that blunder. Apple still hasn't recovered those lost tens of billions of market cap. Now with Samsung openly gunning for them, Apple shareholders might as well just give up hoping for an Apple rebound.
Apple is simply going to continue on its own path of building high%u2013quality products for the elite and Samsung is going to drown Apple with a massive flood of devices aimed at every consumer on the planet. It will ruin Apple shareholders and drive potential investors away from Apple in droves. Apple will be lucky to be worth anything when this war is over.