Don't get an attitude. Your chart had no citation.
[QUOTE]I said that Apple was the #1 smart phone maker, did I not?[/QUOTE]
And backhanded compliment usually say something nice first.
[QUOTE]True but irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
It's not irrelevant. There are only two major players and you're trying to claim that Android (an OS) is "winning" by domination over the iPhone (a device by one vendor) despite every iPhone being sold is being reprented and much better levels than the chart this article is based on despite your odd anti-Apple tilt.
[QUOTE]Having more devices on the market is part of Samsung's strategy.[/QUOTE]
Their strategy to make more money with the S4 and have it rank better than the iPhone 4S is by having hundreds of other devices? What?!
[QUOTE]Is looking good the object, or is selling phones? Windows and HTC look good but they have like 5% of the smartphone market between them.[/QUOTE]
Looking good is clearly a reference to their unit sales ranking which is shown here to be much, much worse than the source chart shows.
[QUOTE]How, when 7 of the 10 devices on the chart are Android phones?[/QUOTE]
If that's your logic then why not make a chart for a 100 or 1000 smartphones. Then Android-based devices will probably dominate well over 90 or 900 spots and the iPhone will still only have three making their presence by your standards only 3% or 0.3%.
[QUOTE]If being the #2 smartphone maker is bad for your image, what does that say about #3?[/QUOTE]
Again, you're chart shows the mid-range, iPhone 5C that is using old components as besting both the top end Galaxy S4 and Note 3. That looks worse than the original charts where the 5C isn't even making the top 3. The only way it's a good thing that Samsung is the #2 smartphone [I]maker[/I] is if you really care about Xiaomi and yet it's a company most don't know. People know and care about Samsung and Apple. Apple the number 1 maker of smartphones by a wide margin and Samsung the number maker of Android-based devices by a wide margin to the next closest Android-based developer.
[QUOTE]Any way you slice it, Samsung is in a good position.[/QUOTE]
No one is denying that but the questions till remains why you are so strong on Samsung and Android that you'd post info that makes them look weaker in comparison to Apple. But, hey, knock yourself out. I'm looking forward to the list of the 1000 smartphones that show Apple only ranks in 0.3% of the spots.
PS: It's annoying to fix your quoting so I may not reply to you again.
The Galaxy S4 is a a much older phone than the 5s. Wasn't it released around April last year? For all the people here that continue to say large display phones don't sell in any significant quantity, the chart above seems to disagree with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Yup, announced last March and available to buy in April/13. The latest iPhones went on sale starting late October IIRC, about a 6 month gap between the two. I guess this is the schedule Samsung will be sticking with for awhile. Makes complete sense.
What's most surprising to me is the Note 3 actually making such a strong showing. While I certainly laughed at the 'DED math' when he compared like a month of Note 3 sales against a years worth of S4/iPhone sales to declare the Note3 and phablets in general as complete failures- what I didn't expect is sales to be anywhere near the top 3 or even outselling the 5c on any carriers. At that size you'd think it would be in much more of a niche.
What's most surprising to me is the Note 3 actually making such a strong showing. While I certainly laughed at the 'DED math' when he compared like a month of Note 3 sales against a years worth of S4/iPhone sales to declare the Note3 and phablets in general as complete failures- what I didn't expect is sales to be anywhere near the top 3 or even outselling the 5c on any carriers. At that size you'd think it would be in much more of a niche.
Go find me a month, any month, prior to the 5C launch where Apple had MORE than ONE iPhone in the top three.
Sorry, can't find the graph but this should do:
“Our monthly channel checks indicated very strong sales trends for the new iPhone 4S and lower priced legacy iPhone 4 and 3GS models,” Canaccord analyst T. Michael Walkley said in a research note today. The iPhone 4S was the top selling model at AT&T, Sprint and Verizon, with the less expensive iPhone 4 a top three selling model at each of those carriers, he added.
Don't get an attitude. Your chart had no citation.
And backhanded compliment usually say something nice first.
It's not irrelevant. There are only two major players and you're trying to claim that Android (an OS) is "winning" by domination over the iPhone (a device by one vendor) despite every iPhone being sold is being reprented and much better levels than the chart this article is based on despite your odd anti-Apple tilt.
Their strategy to make more money with the S4 and have it rank better than the iPhone 4S is by having hundreds of other devices? What?!
Looking good is clearly a reference to their unit sales ranking which is shown here to be much, much worse than the source chart shows.
If that's your logic then why not make a chart for a 100 or 1000 smartphones. Then Android-based devices will probably dominate well over 90 or 900 spots and the iPhone will still only have three making their presence by your standards only 3% or 0.3%.
Again, you're chart shows the mid-range, iPhone 5C that is using old components as besting both the top end Galaxy S4 and Note 3. That looks worse than the original charts where the 5C isn't even making the top 3. The only way it's a good thing that Samsung is the #2 smartphone maker is if you really care about Xiaomi and yet it's a company most don't know. People know and care about Samsung and Apple. Apple the number 1 maker of smartphones by a wide margin and Samsung the number maker of Android-based devices by a wide margin to the next closest Android-based developer.
No one is denying that but the questions till remains why you are so strong on Samsung and Android that you'd post info that makes them look weaker in comparison to Apple. But, hey, knock yourself out. I'm looking forward to the list of the 1000 smartphones that show Apple only ranks in 0.3% of the spots.
PS: It's annoying to fix your quoting so I may not reply to you again.
Your presumptions are all off. You are presuming that I have some anti-Apple bias or agenda. I do not. Quite the contrary, I have purchased several Apple devices, regularly use I-Tunes and its store to obtain media for my Windows device, and will purchase an I-Pad this year. Not being in the "Apple to the exclusion of everything else" camp does not make me anti-Apple. I am not interested in Samsung and Android beating Apple. I am interested in Android and other alternatives remaining commercially viable.
"There are only two major players and you're trying to claim that Android (an OS) is "winning" by domination over the iPhone (a device by one vendor) despite every iPhone being sold is being reprented and much better levels than the chart this article is based on despite your odd anti-Apple tilt."
I never said or implied anything. I only stated - explicitly several times in multiple posts - that Samsung is #2 to Apple. So what is annoying is your trying to make me an anti-Apple guy, an Android triumphalist or otherwise attributing to me statements or thoughts that I do not have and are not trying to push. And if you continue that, then it is you who is not worth replying to.
Let me try to get you to understand something. I am a tech worker who has attended a number of schools and worked in a variety of companies over quite awhile. Here is the deal: not everybody can afford Apple products. Let me restate that for you. Not everyone can afford Apple products. This is not even about the "if your household income isn't 6 figures then oh well you are a loser so I guess you can go ahead and buy the cheap, inferior Android and Windows crap" nonsense that gets bandied about. Instead, well hey not every school is Stanford or UCLA. If Apple products were all that existed, most schools wouldn't even have IT or programming departments because they wouldn't be able to afford enough devices for their students. Small or even medium-sized businesses? More of the same. How many companies out there do you think can actually afford to equip all of their workers with MacBooks and I-Pads? Developing markets? Ditto. They have the same worker productivity needs that we have in America, but I-Phones are out of reach for them. For places like that, go Xiaomi!
And yes, even in good ole USA, let me give you an example. A great niche market for putting educational software on Android tablets has sprung up. Your kids probably don't need them, but they are great learning tools for kids who don't have upper middle class parents. There are some schools where lots of the students have them and teachers actually give assignments on them and such. Those educational Android tablets aren't competing with I-Pads by the way, but with electronic learning products made by companies like Leapfrog and V-Tech. The Android tablets are superior to those far more limited e-learning devices in every way, to the point where the electronic learning companies will either have to start making their own Android tablets, convert their learning software to Android apps or go the way of Blackberry. Is Apple competing in that space? Nope, because the profit margins are too small. But lots of companies are, and their products are much better than what existed before. So stuff like that is why rooting for Android's failure is idiotic. Android products can most certainly succeed in ways that don't affect Apple at all, and that is one example of many. As more entrepreneurs play around with it, more specialty type devices and products will emerge, and since they won't have pre-existing Apple products to compare them to (which is why the Android-based MP3 players failed ... they were utterly inferior to I-Pods in every way and weren't even all that cheap) they will have a much better chance of succeeding.
Sorry, but rooting for only Apple to succeed is bad for business. Consumers who can't afford their products benefit from having cheaper but still quality devices to meet their needs. And sellers such as Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Target etc. certainly benefit from having products available that more of their shoppers can afford. Sorry, but rooting for Apple to have the same kind of hegemony that Microsoft did is ridiculous. Apple advocates complained about Microsoft's monopolistic tactics for decades only to now want to enjoy their own. But here's the deal: an Apple monopoly would be WORSE than the Microsoft one. At least Microsoft products were available from a range of OEMs who could compete, which made prices affordable for the lower end market and quality pretty good (not Apple quality but still pretty good) for higher end devices. But an Apple monopoly would just be "well if you can't afford our premium products then hey it sucks to be you (and to be the school or business that you are trying to run)."
Bottom line: Samsung's success is good for Android. That is not an anti-Apple stance, but a pro-market and pro-consumer stance. Yes, I do want someone else i.e. HP, Toshiba, Asus, Acer, Lenovo, Amazon etc. to compete with Samsung. They've been doing a bad job so far for a variety of reasons, mainly bad marketing strategies. (For example, HP should have targeted the enterprise market for their tablet from the outset, now they have lost that market potential to Samsung with their gigantic 12.2 inch ultra-tablet. Instead, virtually no one, not even people who use HP Windows machines at work, even knows that HP sells tablets. ) I also want Ubuntu and other OS to compete with Android. (But Ubuntu isn't doing so hot; they are having trouble lining up manufacturers and distributors, and they just discontinued their cloud drive service.) But the main thing is that I want to see competition. If your real issue is not desiring competition for Apple, whatever the negative consequences to the market and consumers, then my posts will generally annoy you.
When the iPhone 6 has a larger screen everyone can stop talking about non-Apple phones. And do yourself a favor and sell your iPhone on craigslist if you are feeling brave or a site like www.flipdnow.com if you want to get top dollar for it.
Comments
Don't get an attitude. Your chart had no citation.
[QUOTE]I said that Apple was the #1 smart phone maker, did I not?[/QUOTE]
And backhanded compliment usually say something nice first.
[QUOTE]True but irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
It's not irrelevant. There are only two major players and you're trying to claim that Android (an OS) is "winning" by domination over the iPhone (a device by one vendor) despite every iPhone being sold is being reprented and much better levels than the chart this article is based on despite your odd anti-Apple tilt.
[QUOTE]Having more devices on the market is part of Samsung's strategy.[/QUOTE]
Their strategy to make more money with the S4 and have it rank better than the iPhone 4S is by having hundreds of other devices? What?!
[QUOTE]Is looking good the object, or is selling phones? Windows and HTC look good but they have like 5% of the smartphone market between them.[/QUOTE]
Looking good is clearly a reference to their unit sales ranking which is shown here to be much, much worse than the source chart shows.
[QUOTE]How, when 7 of the 10 devices on the chart are Android phones?[/QUOTE]
If that's your logic then why not make a chart for a 100 or 1000 smartphones. Then Android-based devices will probably dominate well over 90 or 900 spots and the iPhone will still only have three making their presence by your standards only 3% or 0.3%.
[QUOTE]If being the #2 smartphone maker is bad for your image, what does that say about #3?[/QUOTE]
Again, you're chart shows the mid-range, iPhone 5C that is using old components as besting both the top end Galaxy S4 and Note 3. That looks worse than the original charts where the 5C isn't even making the top 3. The only way it's a good thing that Samsung is the #2 smartphone [I]maker[/I] is if you really care about Xiaomi and yet it's a company most don't know. People know and care about Samsung and Apple. Apple the number 1 maker of smartphones by a wide margin and Samsung the number maker of Android-based devices by a wide margin to the next closest Android-based developer.
[QUOTE]Any way you slice it, Samsung is in a good position.[/QUOTE]
No one is denying that but the questions till remains why you are so strong on Samsung and Android that you'd post info that makes them look weaker in comparison to Apple. But, hey, knock yourself out. I'm looking forward to the list of the 1000 smartphones that show Apple only ranks in 0.3% of the spots.
PS: It's annoying to fix your quoting so I may not reply to you again.
A lot of people care. I'm not discounting the importance of worldwide sales, but US sales are a strong indicator of total sales figures.
A lot of people care. I'm not discounting the importance of worldwide sales, but US sales are a strong indicator of total sales figures.
No kidding. In the US* the 5c is #4 at best on the top 4 carriers but, somehow, sales in the rest of the world have made it #2. Hmmmm...
... and I do trust Cannacord's figures more than most.
I am curious about the December chart, though... hmmmmm....
(*the USA... you know, the place where sales of the 5c are, apparently, stronger than anywhere else in the world)
The Galaxy S4 is a a much older phone than the 5s. Wasn't it released around April last year? For all the people here that continue to say large display phones don't sell in any significant quantity, the chart above seems to disagree with you.
Yup, announced last March and available to buy in April/13. The latest iPhones went on sale starting late October IIRC, about a 6 month gap between the two. I guess this is the schedule Samsung will be sticking with for awhile. Makes complete sense.
What's most surprising to me is the Note 3 actually making such a strong showing. While I certainly laughed at the 'DED math' when he compared like a month of Note 3 sales against a years worth of S4/iPhone sales to declare the Note3 and phablets in general as complete failures- what I didn't expect is sales to be anywhere near the top 3 or even outselling the 5c on any carriers. At that size you'd think it would be in much more of a niche.
The 'Ellen' factor maybe?
Bollocks! Try and find just one example of these Canaccord figures showing an iPhone in 3rd place.
What, like your memory?
Bollocks! Try and find just one example of these Canaccord figures showing an iPhone in 3rd place.
You mean like this one:
No.
Go find me a month, any month, prior to the 5C launch where Apple had MORE than ONE iPhone in the top three.
No.
Go find me a month, any month, prior to the 5C launch where Apple had MORE than ONE iPhone in the top three.
Sorry, can't find the graph but this should do:
“Our monthly channel checks indicated very strong sales trends for the new iPhone 4S and lower priced legacy iPhone 4 and 3GS models,” Canaccord analyst T. Michael Walkley said in a research note today. The iPhone 4S was the top selling model at AT&T, Sprint and Verizon, with the less expensive iPhone 4 a top three selling model at each of those carriers, he added.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/apple-primed-for-record-iphone-sales-canaccord/article4248790/ ;
You do know the CEO of Samsung is a two time felon? EAsy to hide numbers.
The Supreme Court in India has asked the Samsung CEO to appear before a court to face criminal charges.
Link to the WSJ article:
http://tinyurl.com/mxk32qj
Nothing much may come off it though.
saw some thing about this post here http://goo.gl/qcYB60
Don't get an attitude. Your chart had no citation.
And backhanded compliment usually say something nice first.
It's not irrelevant. There are only two major players and you're trying to claim that Android (an OS) is "winning" by domination over the iPhone (a device by one vendor) despite every iPhone being sold is being reprented and much better levels than the chart this article is based on despite your odd anti-Apple tilt.
Their strategy to make more money with the S4 and have it rank better than the iPhone 4S is by having hundreds of other devices? What?!
Looking good is clearly a reference to their unit sales ranking which is shown here to be much, much worse than the source chart shows.
If that's your logic then why not make a chart for a 100 or 1000 smartphones. Then Android-based devices will probably dominate well over 90 or 900 spots and the iPhone will still only have three making their presence by your standards only 3% or 0.3%.
Again, you're chart shows the mid-range, iPhone 5C that is using old components as besting both the top end Galaxy S4 and Note 3. That looks worse than the original charts where the 5C isn't even making the top 3. The only way it's a good thing that Samsung is the #2 smartphone maker is if you really care about Xiaomi and yet it's a company most don't know. People know and care about Samsung and Apple. Apple the number 1 maker of smartphones by a wide margin and Samsung the number maker of Android-based devices by a wide margin to the next closest Android-based developer.
No one is denying that but the questions till remains why you are so strong on Samsung and Android that you'd post info that makes them look weaker in comparison to Apple. But, hey, knock yourself out. I'm looking forward to the list of the 1000 smartphones that show Apple only ranks in 0.3% of the spots.
PS: It's annoying to fix your quoting so I may not reply to you again.
Your presumptions are all off. You are presuming that I have some anti-Apple bias or agenda. I do not. Quite the contrary, I have purchased several Apple devices, regularly use I-Tunes and its store to obtain media for my Windows device, and will purchase an I-Pad this year. Not being in the "Apple to the exclusion of everything else" camp does not make me anti-Apple. I am not interested in Samsung and Android beating Apple. I am interested in Android and other alternatives remaining commercially viable.
"There are only two major players and you're trying to claim that Android (an OS) is "winning" by domination over the iPhone (a device by one vendor) despite every iPhone being sold is being reprented and much better levels than the chart this article is based on despite your odd anti-Apple tilt."
I never said or implied anything. I only stated - explicitly several times in multiple posts - that Samsung is #2 to Apple. So what is annoying is your trying to make me an anti-Apple guy, an Android triumphalist or otherwise attributing to me statements or thoughts that I do not have and are not trying to push. And if you continue that, then it is you who is not worth replying to.
Let me try to get you to understand something. I am a tech worker who has attended a number of schools and worked in a variety of companies over quite awhile. Here is the deal: not everybody can afford Apple products. Let me restate that for you. Not everyone can afford Apple products. This is not even about the "if your household income isn't 6 figures then oh well you are a loser so I guess you can go ahead and buy the cheap, inferior Android and Windows crap" nonsense that gets bandied about. Instead, well hey not every school is Stanford or UCLA. If Apple products were all that existed, most schools wouldn't even have IT or programming departments because they wouldn't be able to afford enough devices for their students. Small or even medium-sized businesses? More of the same. How many companies out there do you think can actually afford to equip all of their workers with MacBooks and I-Pads? Developing markets? Ditto. They have the same worker productivity needs that we have in America, but I-Phones are out of reach for them. For places like that, go Xiaomi!
And yes, even in good ole USA, let me give you an example. A great niche market for putting educational software on Android tablets has sprung up. Your kids probably don't need them, but they are great learning tools for kids who don't have upper middle class parents. There are some schools where lots of the students have them and teachers actually give assignments on them and such. Those educational Android tablets aren't competing with I-Pads by the way, but with electronic learning products made by companies like Leapfrog and V-Tech. The Android tablets are superior to those far more limited e-learning devices in every way, to the point where the electronic learning companies will either have to start making their own Android tablets, convert their learning software to Android apps or go the way of Blackberry. Is Apple competing in that space? Nope, because the profit margins are too small. But lots of companies are, and their products are much better than what existed before. So stuff like that is why rooting for Android's failure is idiotic. Android products can most certainly succeed in ways that don't affect Apple at all, and that is one example of many. As more entrepreneurs play around with it, more specialty type devices and products will emerge, and since they won't have pre-existing Apple products to compare them to (which is why the Android-based MP3 players failed ... they were utterly inferior to I-Pods in every way and weren't even all that cheap) they will have a much better chance of succeeding.
Sorry, but rooting for only Apple to succeed is bad for business. Consumers who can't afford their products benefit from having cheaper but still quality devices to meet their needs. And sellers such as Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Target etc. certainly benefit from having products available that more of their shoppers can afford. Sorry, but rooting for Apple to have the same kind of hegemony that Microsoft did is ridiculous. Apple advocates complained about Microsoft's monopolistic tactics for decades only to now want to enjoy their own. But here's the deal: an Apple monopoly would be WORSE than the Microsoft one. At least Microsoft products were available from a range of OEMs who could compete, which made prices affordable for the lower end market and quality pretty good (not Apple quality but still pretty good) for higher end devices. But an Apple monopoly would just be "well if you can't afford our premium products then hey it sucks to be you (and to be the school or business that you are trying to run)."
Bottom line: Samsung's success is good for Android. That is not an anti-Apple stance, but a pro-market and pro-consumer stance. Yes, I do want someone else i.e. HP, Toshiba, Asus, Acer, Lenovo, Amazon etc. to compete with Samsung. They've been doing a bad job so far for a variety of reasons, mainly bad marketing strategies. (For example, HP should have targeted the enterprise market for their tablet from the outset, now they have lost that market potential to Samsung with their gigantic 12.2 inch ultra-tablet. Instead, virtually no one, not even people who use HP Windows machines at work, even knows that HP sells tablets. ) I also want Ubuntu and other OS to compete with Android. (But Ubuntu isn't doing so hot; they are having trouble lining up manufacturers and distributors, and they just discontinued their cloud drive service.) But the main thing is that I want to see competition. If your real issue is not desiring competition for Apple, whatever the negative consequences to the market and consumers, then my posts will generally annoy you.
Now its the #2 phone in the world the last 4 months. Guess who got it right? You or Apple?
Any source for that?