IDC data shows 66% of Android's 81% smartphone share are junk phones selling for $215

1246789

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 180
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,965member
    jungmark wrote: »
    Perhaps that's why no Android vendor releases real numbers or any real per unit data in their financials.

    But they do post earnings, and Samsung has been doing quite well, unfortunately none of the other manufacturers are.
  • Reply 62 of 180
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,965member
    hill60 wrote: »
    Android phones start at below $50, you are trying to beat up a market that barely exists seeing as how you brought up "ignorance".

    The people who buy these phones often do not want to pay extra associated data costs so do not use any thing other than voice calls and SMS, just like they did with the feature phones these "smartphones" are replacing. 

    This shows up in usage stats where Android is the dark matter in the smartphone universe.

    While that's true, some don't remain poor forever and Samsung is hoping that those that find themselves in a better financial position in several years will stick with what they know.
  • Reply 63 of 180
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,356member
    jungmark wrote: »
    Perhaps that's why no Android vendor releases real numbers or any real per unit data in their financials.


    As a US-based company I thought Motorola does. Could be wrong.
  • Reply 64 of 180
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Web usage proves that they are not doing much with those cheap phones.  Since iOS usage is at about 85%

    You mean the web usage statistics for the top US sites?

    I've yet to see any reports on how low-cost smartphones are being used in India and China. I think it would be fascinating, and probably surprising, to find out.
  • Reply 65 of 180
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,568member
    macair wrote: »
    And, most of all, iPhones are rare in most countries. That makes services like iMessage and FaceTime virtually useless for most people. Hangouts is useless too, but you see my point:

    What point? FaceTime and iMessage are available on iPhones, iPads, iPod touches, macs. The install base is tremendous for those products.
    economics wrote: »
    That's a just announced, top-end device, from a manufacturer in China that has users more active in app usage than Apple's (and the company aims to make money from selling them things via the phone, Amazon Kindle HD style).

    You have a source?
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    But they do post earnings, and Samsung has been doing quite well, unfortunately none of the other manufacturers are.

    Sammy has been doing well. But have they been doing well with less? Ie do they have to ship 200MM items to get $7billion?
    gatorguy wrote: »
    As a US-based company I thought Motorola does. Could be wrong.

    Unit sales are not required to be reported. Moto might, but I doubt it since they probably aren't selling a lot.
  • Reply 66 of 180
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,965member
    jungmark wrote: »
    Sammy has been doing well. But have they been doing well with less? Ie do they have to ship 200MM items to get $7billion?

    Investors prefer a company that has many revenue streams versus just a handful. If a few of those streams die out of the first company it won't hurt much but if one of the revenue streams of the company with only a handful dry up it could prove disastrous.
  • Reply 67 of 180
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,568member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Investors prefer a company that has many revenue streams versus just a handful. If a few of those streams die out of the first company it won't hurt much but if one of the revenue streams of the company with only a handful dry up it could prove disastrous.

    Explain Google. How did we get to investors?
  • Reply 68 of 180
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,965member
    jungmark wrote: »
    Explain Google. How did we get to investors?

    Because investors are the ones that judge a company with there money. Google is different because they don't manufacture a product. Investors know that as long as people have computers and want to search something Google will be the most commonly used search engine.
  • Reply 69 of 180
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by economics View Post

     

    Basically equal or better than the latest, best Android phones you can buy anywhere in the world. They sell them in batches and 100,000 of them go in about 90 seconds.


    Equal or better? Not at all, starting with the SOC. It is worth value than say, a Nexus or the just announced (and fantastic) Moto G.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post





    What point? FaceTime and iMessage are available on iPhones, iPads, iPod touches, macs. The install base is tremendous for those products.

    You have a source?

    Sammy has been doing well. But have they been doing well with less? Ie do they have to ship 200MM items to get $7billion?

    My point is that FaceTime and iMessage are as good as dust in most countries, since iDevices are so rare that no one uses those services.

     

    Why do they have to sell less to "win"? What defines the quality of a business strategy is the money you make (past, present and future) and Samsung is making as much money. Not only that, if nothing changes, they will make more money next year.

     

    Again, this just shows that there is room for another premium iPhone line with a bigger screen.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post



    Because investors are the ones that judge a company with there money. Google is different because they don't manufacture a product. Investors know that as long as people have computers and want to search something Google will be the most commonly used search engine.

    There is nothing wrong with the way that Google is seen.

    The only thing wrong is the ignorant opinion that investors have towards Apple.

  • Reply 70 of 180

    So people can realize hoe pathetic this editorial is:

     

    http://9to5google.com/2013/11/13/motorola-makes-moto-g-official-at-international-online-unveiling/

     

    In the Android world, 199$ can give you:


    • Great 720p 329ppi 4.5" display;

    • s400 SOC;

    • 1gb of ram;

    • 33% more talktime than the 5s;

    • Nice design and build quality;

    • Fantastic Vanilla Android, only surpassed by iOS7;

    • Guaranteed updates.

    • 16gb storage.

     

    AI needs someone with a little more knowledge. I mean: "Go away", "trash", "junk"?

  • Reply 71 of 180
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,356member
    macair wrote: »
    So people can realize hoe pathetic this editorial is:

    http://9to5google.com/2013/11/13/motorola-makes-moto-g-official-at-international-online-unveiling/

    In the Android world, 199$ can give you:
    • Great 720p 329ppi 4.5" display;
    • s400 SOC;
    • 1gb of ram;
    • 33% more talktime than the 5s;
    • Nice design and build quality;
    • Fantastic Vanilla Android, only surpassed by iOS7;
    • Guaranteed updates.
    • 16gb storage.

    AI needs someone with a little more knowledge. I mean: "Go away", "trash", "junk"?

    I figured $199 price must be subsidized. Pretty darn surprised to read that's for an unlocked phone with no carrier subsidizing.

    Wow. . .
  • Reply 72 of 180
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post



    You have a source?

     

    http://www.tech-thoughts.net/2013/09/xiaomi-international-growth-data-usage-carriers.html

  • Reply 73 of 180
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post



    Well this settles two things:



    1. The high end android phones are outselling the iPhone.

    2. Phablets are a large part of the smartphone landscape.



    Phablets alone are selling 1.6x as many units as the iPhone sells, and there are only two phablets that fall into something other than the high end category that I'm aware of - the two Galaxy Mega models, which are mid-tier phones.



    Outside of the phablet category are most of the flagship models of the last year (assuming the cutoff is 5" and above).



    Nexus 4 - 4.7"

    HTC One - 4.7"

    Moto X - 4.7"

    LG Optimus G - 4.7"

    Droid RAZR HD - 4.7"



    Apple needs to offer a larger screen ASAP. Maybe even the rumored two larger sizes in addition to the current size.

     

    Your list of phones well illustrates the delusion of many Android fans who think the higher end models of HTC, Motorola and LG are representative of the "81% marketshare." If that were the case, Apple’s App Store wouldn’t be dominate, and Google Play wouldn’t be a rummage sale of a bunch of adware. 

     

    That’s also the point of the article: the higher end (for Android, anyway) is only 20% of these numbers. And the phones you seem to think are selling in quantity (because none of those companies would dare to say how many they are actually selling!) are actually selling in such low quantities that they hardly even shift the ASP of the Android market. 

  • Reply 74 of 180
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JamesMac View Post

     

     

    The 3Q for Samsung and 4Q results from Apple came out fairly recently.

     

    Samsung Electronic's net profit was approx. $7.7 billion and Apple's was $7.5    The Operating profit for Apple was higher, but you've stated net profit, where Samsung beat Apple.


     

    So you are arguing that Apple pays higher taxes overalll? How is that relevant to the comparison of Apple vs Samsung in mobile devices? 

     

    Or do you think it is important that everything else Samsung does, from heated bidet toilet seats to refrigerators, contributes a tiny amount that allows its plateauing mobile sales to, after taxes, amount to slightly more than Apple? 

     

  • Reply 75 of 180
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

     

     

    So you are arguing that Apple pays higher taxes overalll? How is that relevant to the comparison of Apple vs Samsung in mobile devices? 

     

    Or do you think it is important that everything else Samsung does, from heated bidet toilet seats to refrigerators, contributes a tiny amount that allows its plateauing mobile sales to, after taxes, amount to slightly more than Apple? 

     


     

    The relevance is that Samsung has more funds to reinvest back into the business as any first year business student could tell you.

     

    Have you used those heated toilet seats with the dual spray jets?   I used those in Japan, damn they're better than what we have in the west!

  • Reply 76 of 180
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JamesMac View Post

     

    I see both good and bad in these numbers for Apple.

     

    The good news is they are doing very well at maintaining a high ASP while still growing. With the 5S in particular they've managed to slightly grow ASP from Q2 to Q3 this year, in a market that is clearly seeing pricing drops.  This is impressive.

     

    The bad news is obviously they are losing share which may contribute to them pricing lower in the future.  The other thing I see that no one seems to have commented on is the growth of Windows.  I don't think too many people expected this type of growth from Windows.  It will be interesting to see how the industry as a whole reacts to this, including Apple.  Windows seem to be showing strength in Europe (Italy in particular for some reason) and the US, but not in Asia and Latin America.

     

    The one area I criticize Apple for is not getting into the phablet/large screen market sooner.  I know many of you feel differently, but the data is compelling, this is where much of the growth in the high end of the market is.  


     

    Careful with statistics. IDC says its phablet estimates went from 3% to 21% yoy. That’s 5.6m to 54.8m! Sounds great, but that’s largely due to Samsung taking its Galaxy S3 from 4.7" to 5" with the Galaxy S4. See how one can create phenomenal "growth figures" simply by shifting an arbitrary boundary definition? 

     

    That’s also what’s happening when IDC compares iPhones against 172 million cheap phone shipments. What’s next: do we start counting TV shipments in with tablets so the iPad’s share "goes down" even faster in the "screen market?"

     

    IDC already includes lots of "toys" (the analyst’s word) in its tablet figures. Don’t willingly be fooled just because you like the sound of Apple losing. It doesn’t make it so.

  • Reply 77 of 180
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dodger View Post

     

    It appears you’ve forgotten to take into account Apple’s differed revenue model.  Apple discloses units, revenue and differed revenue.  None of it’s competitors, as far as I know, use a differed revenue model.  

     

    It appears from the article you are using the total sales revenue for all phones and subtracting Apple’s realized revenue, without including their differed revenue for this year, to scry the actual number of Android phones sold.  A more accurate picture would be to also subtract Apple’s differed revenue as well as realized earnings from Android global earnings.  I'm guessing this would make things look even more dire for high end Android.

     

    ... but I could be wrong. 


     

    Deferred revenue isn’t relevant because this isn’t a measurement of GAAP profitability. We are simply looking at where the buckets of money come from, solving for X because IDC doesn’t publicly report what X is. 

     

    Apple’s contribution is their # of phones sold x ASP of those phones. Same for Android and everyone else, it’s just that Android spans from iPhone priced gear to sub $100 stuff, and market research lumps together very dissimilar things to create an impression that 81% of the market is something like a Galaxy S4, when that isn’t remotely true. 

  • Reply 78 of 180
    Sales numbers reflect a moment in time, when each device was sold, and gives no sense of the prevalence of the population of that device model thereafter. As Apple has stressed and measuring sites have demonstrated, the real measure of a device population is evidence of usage, where Web and app metrics are much more telling. There, Apple devices dominate, where one has to wonder where all those other, sold devices went, or how usable they are.

    Speculation is that large numbers of those cheap, "plastic" cellular phones are short-lived and/or minimally used, effectively representing a continual pipeline to landfills with a short ownership interval in between. In this view, sales numbers are almost meaningless in providing a sense of the significance of a given device model or class of device.
  • Reply 79 of 180
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by andrewb123 View Post

     

     

    You don't need to make a prediction for something that's already happened! 

     

    Smartphone technology has already reached the point where a basic entry level device is 'good enough' at performing day to day tasks for most users.  It took PCs decades to reach that point. The bandwagon is already over for smartphones, move on.  I'm sure there will be something else for first world consumers to fixate on before long. 

     

    Growing the accessibility of reasonably functioning 'good enough' smartphones to an increasingly wider market at ever shrinking price points is a good thing, why is it so difficult for so many people here see that?


     

    In the early 80s there were people in who thought that a 640 KB DOS PC running 1-2-3 & Word Perfect had achieved the pinnacle of progress. Then the Mac came along, and ten years later all those DOS users were on Windows 95.

     

    In the early 2000s there were people in who thought that a Pentium 4 Windows 2000 PC running Office and IE had achieved the pinnacle of progress. Then Mac OS X came along, and ten years later all those DOS users were on iPads.

     

    But seriously, around 2000 Intel and Microsoft were befuddled trying to figure out how to get people to buy new expensive CPU hardware & Windows licenses because they couldn’t see how to sell anyone more stuff, because everyone seemed happy with their basic PCs. Look it up, they were trying to invent some sort of 3D standard for webpages just to burn processor cycles. 

     

    Then Apple came along with iLife apps and FCP and promoted being able to do new things, with a desktop UI leveraging video game style graphics compositing. And Microsoft scrabbled to catch up, but was too late.

     

    Same thing with every phone vendor when the iPhone appeared. And today, the iPhone’s only real competitor is a rewarmed version of Java/Linux. It is not a robust platform for the future. It’s junk.

  • Reply 80 of 180

    First, the IDC report just represent how statistic can be made to tell a story which is just a lie. 

     

    Next, nice analysis of picking apart the number and showing what it all really means.

     

    More and more I see the numbers and what is happen, I think google somehow got everyone to buy in to their reality distortion field that if they blanket the earth with android products that everyone involved, (Manufactures, Developers, Service Providers, Content Owner and Website and Advertisers) would make money inspirit of making cheap stuff since market share always win.

     

    Do anyone know for sure if Google shares any of the ad revenue with the Hardware Manufacture, Content Owers and Service Providers. I know Google shares ad $ with website sight to place google ads and such. I am wondering if google offer some sort of kick back to the Manufactures for any and all ads which show up on their device as well as through the service providers networks.

     

    If Google was sharing incoming with everyone in the chain then it would make sense to dump as much free cheap stuff if you believe you would make it up over years as the Ad $ come rolling in. As we have read that is not happening since most users of an Android device never use the phone like intended.

     

    I think what we will see, is a bunch of cheap Android stuff and no one making money except Google. I wonder how many time company are going to believe Google when they say trust us you will make money with our idea.

Sign In or Register to comment.