How Apple, Inc. went thermonuclear on Samsung, erasing Android's primary profit center



  • Reply 81 of 315
    chiachia Posts: 712member
    Originally Posted by karmadave View Post
    Samsung is a huge Korean conglomerate with many other LOB's. They still generates tons of cash and will be a formidable competitor, in smartphones, tablets, and PC's for years to come...

    Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

    When companies stop making money on a product, they stop making the product.


    Siemens AG is a conglomerate which sold off its loss-making mobile phone division:

    Wikipedia entry on Siemens Mobile

    BBC News: Siemens sells mobile-phone unit

  • Reply 82 of 315
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    I'd worry a bit that a less than compelling upgrade cycle from Apple might hit the skids some year. That said the tick/tock is clever.
  • Reply 83 of 315
    aylkaylk Posts: 54member

    Originally Posted by Relic View Post



    I don't think people care as much as you think about Google services. I personally don't have a single Google app installed on my Kindle HDX and use MoboGenie as my app store. There are much better alternatives to Google apps. The same goes with all of my Chrome devices, the only two services that I use are Google Drive as there is no way to get around that as it's embedded into the system, it's the primary location of all data and Google Mail. Though even if I used more of their services, there are no ads displayed when using; Google Docs, Gmail, Google+, etc. Well, okay Gmail does have a tab called Promotions, but this is just a search criteria for you your inbox and can be deleted, there's also tabs for Social, Family and Work. The rest of my web apps consist of things like; Office Online; Word, Excel, PowerPoint, OneDrive, OneNote and OutLook, Adobe Photoshop (yes, Photoshop is now available as a web app for Chrome devices and it's actually pretty good) and others, zero ads in any of them. The only place I have seen any actual ad's is on Google Search and that's only when I search for things that can be bought, if you type in for example, "Elephant", Search will only display information about a Elephant on the right hand side, my daughters educational model doesn't show ad's period, Google's Ad services is disabled by default and cannot be turned back on. So your statement about it being all about the ads is actually not entirely correct

    It's not just about ads, it's mainly about user data mining.

  • Reply 84 of 315
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 1,475member
    The PCWorld will say anything to avoid crediting Apple with anything. Samsung in their statement said their growth was in mid and low end phones. Their profit collapse came from poor sales of highend phones when Apple competes.
  • Reply 85 of 315
    Hi all please be patient. Give Samsung some time. This will be samsung's future.


    TOKYO: Sony said on Friday (Oct 31) that its net loss for the April-September period ballooned to nearly US$1.0 billion, as the embattled electronics firm continues to struggle in the cut-throat smartphone business.

    The firm said its net loss came in at ¥109.1 billion, way up from a ¥16.5 billion shortfall in the same period last year. Sony's operating loss of ¥15.8 billion reversed a profit of 49.4 billion last year, although sales ticked up 6.5 per cent to ¥3.71 trillion, it said. The announcement came after Sony in September downgraded its annual earnings outlook, revealing that it would lose a whopping ¥230 billion in the year to March, more than four times its earlier forecast.

    The company also said it would cut the smartphone unit's global staff by 15 per cent - about 1,000 jobs - and not pay dividends for the first time since its shares started trading in Tokyo in 1958. The smartphone business, Sony said, has been hit by weaker-than-expected results in emerging markets, as it battles global rivals including Samsung and Apple.
  • Reply 86 of 315

    This was so predictable. It was about two years ago, when retailers in my area began to sell Samsung phones as "just as good as an iPhone, but cheaper". Honestly, I can't count how many people fell for that. For many of them though it wasn't long until they found out, that their new Galaxy XYZ just is not an iPhone. All these contracts are ending right about now. Think they do the same mistake twice?


    Many rather buy a cheap 3 year-old iPhone 4S than another cheap Android phone


    Samsung had it's moment. It was unable to give its' customers a great experience. You can see the result in the numbers.

  • Reply 87 of 315
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member

    I read the first sentence which was so wrong there was no point reading the rest.   Samsung shot themselves in the foot with the S5 which, apart from the screen, was so underwhelming people went and bought something else.  When I was looking for a phone for my son, Samsung didn't even occur to me since all their top end phones are rather dull so I got him an LG.  Xiaomi has increased sales in the last quarter by 211.3 % and it's Apple who are the cause of Samsung's problems?  Er, don't think so.  That would have required a high proportion of all the potential S5 buyers to have switched camps and gone and bought 5Ss instead, because the 6 hasn't been on sale long enough to have caused Samsung's woes which are rooted in factors prior to the launch of the 6.  Has Apple's market share increased from all those potential S5 buyers jumping ship?  No.  Kantar have ios market share actually declining in the US market in Sep. to 32.6% while Android increased to 61.8% .  In Europe, iOS market share is only 15.4%.


    Samsung makes far too many models and I think the inefficiencies inherent in that were not made up for in S5 sales.  This, together with LG, Xiaomi, Oppo, One +, Sony, etc are the authors of Samsung's woes.

  • Reply 88 of 315
    65c81665c816 Posts: 135member

    Premise is way off base.  Looking at numbers alone, Apple's last quarter jumped up 6 million units.  Xiaomi's units jumped up 12 million units.  Even if all of Apple's increase were to come at the expense of Samsung, that's only a 6 million unit hit against Samsung.  Xiaomi's phones are comparable to Samsung's high end, but priced as a mid end, which is why they're growing so fast.


    It is stupid to discount Xiaomi, and worse yet, it appears that profit isn't their primary goal at this point.

  • Reply 89 of 315

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

    Its not Xiaomi thats killing Samsung. Its Apple. Apple is stealing tens of millions of high end sales from Samsung.

    Samsung will sell about the same amount of phones in 2014 as in 2013. But they will be selling way less high end phones aka the only phones that make money.

    You are giving Xiaomi way too much credit. Xiaomi is a fruad company that is selling phones at cost and is being funded by the Communist Party.


    It's actually Samsung's low end phones that are the issue not their high end. I would 100% blame it more on Xiaomi than I would on Apple. Samsung's main issue is that instead of focusing on a few models they try to have a model for every single price point. They're spreading themselves too thin. 

  • Reply 90 of 315
    my best friend's mother-in-law makes $73 an hour on the laptop . She has been fired from work for 9 months but last month her paycheck was $16734 just working on the laptop for a few hours, chek out the page ======>>> WWW.JOBSFISH.%u2102OM
  • Reply 91 of 315
  • Reply 92 of 315
    patpatpat wrote: »
    Whatever definition is closest match to whatever Samsung mobile is.

    There is no such match, since Samsung clubs together a whole slew of products such as semiconductors and consumer electronics with their mobile phones sales.
  • Reply 93 of 315
    foggyhill wrote: »

    You do know buddy that Samsung made 90% of its profit on the high end phones.

    No buddy I do not. And you do not. And DED does not.

    Because that data does not exist. It's pure speculation.
  • Reply 94 of 315
    Samsung copied the iPhone completely, but Apple has in turn copied one major Samsung innovation leading to the current situation. As Daniel points out:

    "While Samsung failed%u2014along with other Android licensees%u2014to ever earn big profits from tablets, the company did gain new success with its Galaxy Note hybrid "phablet," a product that introduced tablet-like features but sold as a smartphone in subsidized carrier contracts."

    It is this innovation, a market innovation not likely subject to any form of IP protection, that Apple copied, resulting in both increased market share and profitability that should become even more apparent next quarter.

    I would speculate that Samsung was driven to differentiate its smartphones by size simply because their own very scalable OLED screen technology was their only competitive advantage, and I would further speculate that their success initially took even Samsung by surprise, as customers, especially in certain key demographics and markets, embraced larger and larger and larger screens to match their screen focused use and or budgets: only one device. Even size enhanced status. Who would have imagine people toting head obscuring phones?

    And being call-making phones, the cellular industry was happy to subsidize, masking the cost and increasing manufacturer profit substantially.

    Maybe Apple was initially held back by Steve Job's bias against larger phones, but Apple did, certainly does extensive form factor testing and my guess is that the real constraint for Apple in following Samsung was in obtaining suitable screens: large, high resolution, high brightness, low power consumption in sufficient quantities to compete with Samsung's own OLED screens. LG is #2 in OLED but I'm guessing not a viable supplier.

    So, Apple is now beating Samsung at its own game and serves them right, but it is Samsung that created this innovation, and discovered this lucrative market, not Apple, though maybe more by chance than by plan.
  • Reply 95 of 315

    Huge profits without the market share to match it basically shows that a really big group of people is paying too much money for the services and products provided. How odd that this group of people on this forum is extremely happy to understand that it’s been robbed.


    Stockholm syndrome anyone?

  • Reply 96 of 315
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

    Targeting Samsung's profit engines

    A nuclear strike with the ability to devastatingly eviscerate such a valuable target--effectively bombing Samsung back into its Stone Age prior to its copying the iPhone--would require a very sophisticated warhead.

    Producing a large screen phone with adequate 64-bit CPU and leading GPU processing power to drive it, and then giving it clearly differentiated features including Touch ID and Apple Pay as well as Continuity features that tie it into the Mac desktop, iPad and the upcoming Apple Watch, were all elements of a plan to strip Samsung of its Galaxy S and Note 4 profit engines.



    Makes sense to me. I don't think it's pure coincidence that once plans for large screen iPhones became more and more of a likelihood (and when they finally became reality), Samsung started to feel the sting in it's large high-end phone lines. The large (and nice looking) displays are the Samsung phones' best feature. Even Android fans largely dislike their Touchwiz version of Android.

  • Reply 97 of 315

    Very curious, when does Samsung have to pay the 1B?  Thought it would have been by now.  Would love to see that default and a import ban play out.

  • Reply 98 of 315
    So, if the iPhone6/6 sales in Q4 punishes Samsung sales hard enough, Apple could end up with >100 % of the mobile phone profit share (the others sharing the losses). An Android OEM carnage awaits...
  • Reply 99 of 315
    There is nothing original or glorifying about Samsung's products and services. Nothing copycats and they know it. These guys deserve every bit of the punishment coming upon them. Lame, lame, lame.
  • Reply 100 of 315
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    hopeless wrote: »
    Google execs must be secretly wishing they never launched Android. A strong partnership with Apple would be much more profitable.

    It could have also been more deadly. Never count on anyone to make money for you.
Sign In or Register to comment.