Just another ho-hum article that fails to mention the world changing CONCEPT of the Ubuntu phone. Whoever develops this concept first is going to be the next Apple. It's hard to believe that there is not a corporation out there that can grasp this. Apple is more than 80% there, the last remaining part is for iOS apps to run on their computers. If Apple started a division to sell economically priced computers and phones, they could own the world. Their failing is to maximize profits, not to sell good products making a reasonable profit. The question Americans cannot grasp is that if your net worth is already $100 million, what the hell is another $100 million going to do for you? Apple has over $150 billion in cash just sitting around. What the hell is another $50 billion going to do for them?
There is no money out there outside the G-20 for both a smartphone and a computer. These folks are not interested in smaller and faster. They just want and need something they can afford that works. There is the potential out there for a billion sales of a workable ubuntu phone. As Americans, you have no idea, as it is literally impossible for you to walk into a retailer and test drive a computer with linux installed, in spite of the fact that every major manufacture sells computers outside the USA with linux installed. You just cannot find one on their USA website or in a USA store.
I might also note that 16 of the top 20 laptops sold by amazon are priced at less than $350, with 3 of the other 4 from apple. Apple'so A7 chip was considered desktop class. The A8 is much improved. The cost of these processors is about $20. Intel's best efforts at a mobile processor sells for $280, their server processors more than a grand. Connect the dots.
The day I can dock my smartphone into a laptop shell is the day I get rid of my Apple products. And so will a lot of schools and corporations.
First, the market determines what is a world-changing concept. I don;t see a lot of Ubuntu phones around, so maybe its not so world-changing after all, despite your obvious infatuation.
Second, Apple's $150 billion in cash does not belong to one individual. Yes, it's true a person with $100 million doesn't really have a need for the next $100 million, but my share of Apple's cash is no where near $100 million. Not yet, but I'm hopeful. So your comparison is not appropriate.
And as for Apple owning the world by selling less costly PCs and smartphones... in what way would it own the world? In the same manner that Windows owns the PC world with its 85% share? Or in the same manner that Android owns the smartphone world with its 85% share? No thank you very much, sir! Apple owns that portion of the world that makes most sense to an unabashed capitalist like me; they own one of the world's most valuable brands, several highly profitable global lines of business, and the respect and admiration of the vast majority of their customers. The world is not enough!
As usual, DED's Op-ED doesn't make sense. When Jobs declared the thermonuclear war on Android in 2010, Samsung's profit was a fraction of what it is now, in the $1B-$3B range. Samsung revenue/profit catapulted after Jobs's war declaration surpassing Apple's in 3Q 2013.
If there was no such thing as Apple do you think Samsung's profits would have dropped 75%? HELL NO. They would be dominating the high end phones.
If there was no such thing as Xiaomi do you think Samsung's profits would have dropped 75%. HELL YES.
If you do SIMPLETON logic you might think Xiaomi is the cause for Samsung's drop.
But you would be TOTALLY WRONG.
Samsung is selling basicaly the same amount of phones as last year. They are just selling way less top end phones.
Xiaomi does not sell top end phones.
This is like saying BMW is hurting because Ford F150 sales are up. No. They are not catering to the same customer. Xiaomi is NOT catering to the potential Galaxy buyer. One phone cost $700 the other $200.
Using your SIMPLETON logic that just because Xiaomi units sales are up mean they are stealing share from Samsung is IDIOTIC.
If you beleive that then its OTHER that is killing Samsung. OTHER unit sales are up 41%!
Lenovo, LG, Oppo, One +1, Huawei, Nexus and their ilk have taken sales from the S5. I think I did mention once or twice that it was the lack of S5 sales that were the main part of Samsung's problem, so I don't know why you are pretending I didn't. I think it has been suggested to you before that you read and try and comprehend what other people write.
If Apple were the cause of Samsung's problems then the iOS market share should have increased, not declined. The iP6 may well steal market share from Android high end phones, but it is too early to tell. I doubt it will as the iPhone is, as always, far too expensive for the majority of people, which is probably the main reason Apple has a large market share in the US, but typically less than half that elsewhere. Most people who live in the US simply do not appreciate how expensive iPhones are overseas and how high their price is in proportion to peoples incomes.
Oh, my. Where to begin. Okay, here's the thing. The vast majority of Samsung's mobile segment profits come from its high-end smartphones. Agreed? Okay, if peeps who buy Samsung's high-end phones held off on buying a new Samsung high-end phone because they were waiting to see the new iPhone, then this would hurt the profitable part of Samsung's business. Thus, the wait for the new iPhones hit Samsung's profits. Still with me?
Now, if more peeps bought Samsung low-end phones, or less peeps bought Samsung low-end phones, the impact on Samsung's profits wouldn't change much in either direction, because there's so little profit per unit on those phones in the first place. Those phones are manufactured as filler; to keep Samsung's production lines busy in between runs of the profitable high-end phones and to support economies of scale in Samsung's own component and materials supply chain. So if Xiaomi's phones cut into Samsung's sales of low-end phones, this isn't what hurt Samsung's profits. And Xiaomi doesn't make sufficient quantities of its high-end line to impact Samsung at the high end. So simple.
IMO what Sog35 said is absolutely correct as far as all evidence shows, that i can see at any rate. Can you show evidence that a large smart phone was a success prior to iPhone 6 and 6+? It seems reasonable to believe Tim that Apple had to wait till technologies advanced to a point where they could produce a successful larger phone that met Apple's own high benchmarks. Not a POS just to sate a media clamoring, well of course we all know that clamoring media were paid by Sammy in the first place to say that ... kind of a funny vicious circle in hindsight. Or spiral of death to call it by another name.
Sammy should have had a performance clause in those media payouts.
You don't appear to be reading the relevant posts.
If there was no such thing as Apple do you think Samsung's profits would have dropped 75%? HELL NO. They would be dominating the high end phones.
If there was no such thing as Xiaomi do you think Samsung's profits would have dropped 75%. HELL YES.
If you do SIMPLETON logic you might think Xiaomi is the cause for Samsung's drop.
But you would be TOTALLY WRONG.
Samsung is selling basicaly the same amount of phones as last year. They are just selling way less top end phones.
Xiaomi does not sell top end phones.
This is like saying BMW is hurting because Ford F150 sales are up. No. They are not catering to the same customer. Xiaomi is NOT catering to the potential Galaxy buyer. One phone cost $700 the other $200.
Using your SIMPLETON logic that just because Xiaomi units sales are up mean they are stealing share from Samsung is IDIOTIC.
If you beleive that then its OTHER that is killing Samsung. OTHER unit sales are up 41%!
But of course thats not TRUE. The Other brands are POS cheap sheet mostly and are not stealing any share from Samsung top end.
Before you jump in with dismissing China's sales as not all that important note that even Apple says China will be it's biggest profit driver within another couple of years, surpassing the US. Tim Cook doesn't jump when other countries have complaints or concerns (ie Europe) but he'll drop what he's doing on a moment's notice to make a special trip to China at the least sign of trouble. Suppose profits might have something to do with that?
Maybe, Samsung execs won't be getting a large bonus this year. That seems to be the whole point of this article with some voodoo readings of market data. I see little in the way of facts. Just one opinion and assumption after another. Nice job.
Oh, my. Where to begin. Okay, here's the thing. The vast majority of Samsung's mobile segment profits come from its high-end smartphones. Agreed? Okay, if peeps who buy Samsung's high-end phones held off on buying a new Samsung high-end phone because they were waiting to see the new iPhone, then this would hurt the profitable part of Samsung's business. Thus, the wait for the new iPhones hit Samsung's profits. Still with me?
Now, if more peeps bought Samsung low-end phones, or less peeps bought Samsung low-end phones, the impact on Samsung's profits wouldn't change much in either direction, because there's so little profit per unit on those phones in the first place. Those phones are manufactured as filler; to keep Samsung's production lines busy in between runs of the profitable high-end phones and to support economies of scale in Samsung's own component and materials supply chain. So if Xiaomi's phones cut into Samsung's sales of low-end phones, this isn't what hurt Samsung's profits. And Xiaomi doesn't make sufficient quantities of its high-end line to impact Samsung at the high end. So simple.
You and Sog still don't get it. Look at the specs and price of the S5 and then look at the specs and price of the Xiaomi Mi 4, the One +1 etc. These are not low-end phone competitors. They are going head to head with the S5 in specs and yet cost a lot less. Those who wanted a bit more known quality bought the LG G2, Sony Z2 , Z3 etc. Xiaomi on it's own did not nick Samsung's profits, it's the plethora of Android phones with comparable specs that did. I don't believe any significant proportion of high-end spec Android phone users have been eschewing the S5 and waiting for the iPhone 6. Do you know of any market data that shows iOS market share gaining over Android?
Galaxy buyers and Xiaomi buyers are not the same. Galaxies cost $700 in China while Xiaomi cost $200
Xiaomi buyers were former Samsung cheap buyers. Those people who bought POS Samsung phones in the past.
Samsung could care less if they lose low/mid market share.
Samsung makes $5 on a mid/low range phone.
Samsung makes $200 on a high end Galaxy.
Xiaomi is NOT stealing high end sales.
Ummm.... Yeah, I think they are. The M4 is looks to be comparable in every way with Samsung's latest S5 smartphone, except in price. Xiaomi's flagship is $300 less. As a bonus it looks just like Apple's older iPhone models, and likely perceived as a premium build despite the lower cost.
If there was no such thing as Apple do you think Samsung's profits would have dropped 75%? HELL NO. They would be dominating the high end phones.
If there was no such thing as Xiaomi do you think Samsung's profits would have dropped 75%. HELL YES.
If you do SIMPLETON logic you might think Xiaomi is the cause for Samsung's drop.
But you would be TOTALLY WRONG.
Samsung is selling basicaly the same amount of phones as last year. They are just selling way less top end phones.
Xiaomi does not sell top end phones.
This is like saying BMW is hurting because Ford F150 sales are up. No. They are not catering to the same customer. Xiaomi is NOT catering to the potential Galaxy buyer. One phone cost $700 the other $200.
Using your SIMPLETON logic that just because Xiaomi units sales are up mean they are stealing share from Samsung is IDIOTIC.
If you beleive that then its OTHER that is killing Samsung. OTHER unit sales are up 41%!
But of course thats not TRUE. The Other brands are POS cheap sheet mostly and are not stealing any share from Samsung top end.
Wrong, wrong, wrong -- as usual.
(bloomberg)
There is no evidence that Samsung's Galaxy sales in NA declined (by its main competitor Apple). There is however strong evidence that Samsung's high-end sales is wiped out in China by its domestic competitors Xiaomi, Huawei, and Lenovo so far in 2014.
You can't change China from the outside. Foxconn et al is better today because of Apple.
China's politics are one thing, but treating the workers justly is what Apple can do. Foxconn wants to make a profit too, and if Apple says it can and will evolve away from their infrastructure if they don't treat Apple Subcontracted work force with respect. Profit is a powerful force for good, too.
Let's ask Foxconn workers what they think about your opinion. They must be a happy bunch, no?
No one is suggesting that Samsung the conglomerate will be going out of business following this news.
But we're in the greatest time in smartphone history.
And Samsung just had a huge drop in profits in smartphones.
Someone at Samsung is freaking out now... probably a few someones...
And I don't think Samsung's tablets and PCs will save the day either.
The mobile phone division has been generating most of Samsung's profits, the numbers I see are something like 70% drop in mobile div profits and 49% for the company as a whole. That is a huge drop in profits for both the mobile div and Samsung as a whole. I think it's not just someone at Samsung who is freaking out, it's everyone.
On top of that, Samsung's solution to plunging smart phone unit sales is to sell two new mid-price phones. So they seem to be abandoning the high end market (who can blame them?) and entrenching themselves deeper in the Android race to the bottom. Between Apple and the Chinese chewing them up from both ends of the market, and Google resisting every effort Samsung makes to meaningfully differentiate their phones, Samsung's proverbial goose is cooked.
the larger new iPhone 6's are indeed crushing SS high-end sales. even SS admits it. this holiday quarter will be a massacre.
have to note this also blows away the many Tim Cook bashers here and elsewhere. not offering larger screen iPhone models from near the beginning was unquestsionably a Steve Jobs mistake - a big one. SS filled that vacuum to get a large foothold in prime markets. Clearly after Cook took over he reversed this blind spot and got Apple to work developing these new models.
of course it's not just screen size. Touch ID is plainly the key "differentiating feature" that consumers - especially those with assets to lose - really want as digital security becomes more and more of a widespread top concern. not only is SS's version second-rate, nobody trusts Android anyway. And Cook also rightfully gets credit for setting that course for Apple when he bought AuthenTech in 2012, his first year as CEO.
http://www.businessinsider.com/samsung-v-apple-smartphone-sales-and-profits-2014-10
Touch ID is plainly the key "differentiating feature" that consumers - especially those with assets to lose - really want as digital security becomes more and more of a widespread top concern. not only is SS's version second-rate, nobody trusts Android anyway. And Cook also rightfully gets credit for setting that course for Apple when he bought AuthenTech in 2012, his first year as CEO.
Just posted this in a different thread. If you absolutely positively want to keep the government out of your personal phone a pass-code might be a better idea than using Touch ID.
A US District Judge in Virginia has ruled that while you can't be required to reveal your pass-code to unlock your phone your fingerprint doesn't have the same legal protection. It's fair game and refusing to provide a fingerprint for unlocking may land you in jail. So what's the difference, why is a pass-code secure from law enforcement but TouchID might not be? The Judge opined that collecting a fingerprint is akin to taking a DNA or handwriting sample while revealing a pass-code is offering up personal knowledge.
Of course there is evidence. Apple's iPhone units are going up 20-30% the last 6 months. In the Dec quarter it may go up 30-40%. Where do you think those new sales are coming from? They are coming from former Samsung users.
Just because Xiaomi/Huawei are selling more units does not mean they are stealing top end sales. Most of there sales are probably going to people who are going off of feature phones.
Again you are using SIMPLETON logic. Using your logic it is actually the catergory OTHERS that is stealing share from SAmsung. Their unit sales went up 40% last year.
And your table above does not mean JACK SHIT because its not divided by smartphone class. You need to get a table that shows ONLY top end phone sales and who sold the most. You will see that Samsung's top end units are down to about 50,000,000 vs 90,000,000 in 2013. You will see that Apple's top end is up from 150,000,000 to 190,000,000 in 2014. Guess where those extra 40,000,000 high end sales for Apple came from?????
1) Sure, you have no data to back up your claim. You have absolute no data that show Samsung's premium unit sales and, further your stat is completely wrong. According to Morgan Stanley Research, Samsung sold about 130M Galaxy Premium models in 2013. Localytics likewise reported that slightly less than half of Samsung's smartphones are their marquee Galaxy S models, excluding the Note lines (early 2014).
2) Let's borrow your SIMPLETON fanboi logic from the second paragraph. Just because Apple sells more units does not mean they are stealing top end sales. How do you know if low-end, not high-end, Samsung users are moving to Apple? You ain't jack squat.
3) Samsung's global unit sales is DOWN by 7M or -8+% YoY.
4) it doesn't matter whether Xiaomi smartphone is high or low end -- contrary to your batsh*t nonsense, their phones are stealing Samsung's high-end sales. And that's all it matters, according to all the data we have, it's mostly Xiaomi, Lenovo and other Chinese companies stealing Samsung's sales, not Apple, so far in 2014.
Just posted this in a different thread. If you absolutely positively want to keep the government out of your personal phone a pass-code might be a better idea than using Touch ID.
A US District Judge in Virginia has ruled that while you can't be required to reveal your pass-code to unlock your phone your fingerprint doesn't have the same legal protection. It's fair game and refusing to provide a fingerprint for unlocking may land you in jail. So what's the difference, why is a pass-code secure from law enforcement but TouchID might not be? The Judge opined that collecting a fingerprint is akin to taking a DNA or handwriting sample while revealing a pass-code is offering up personal knowledge.
that's not the scenario i worry about. i'm not a crook or wikileaker. it's identity theft by real crooks i worry about.
Comments
Just another ho-hum article that fails to mention the world changing CONCEPT of the Ubuntu phone. Whoever develops this concept first is going to be the next Apple. It's hard to believe that there is not a corporation out there that can grasp this. Apple is more than 80% there, the last remaining part is for iOS apps to run on their computers. If Apple started a division to sell economically priced computers and phones, they could own the world. Their failing is to maximize profits, not to sell good products making a reasonable profit. The question Americans cannot grasp is that if your net worth is already $100 million, what the hell is another $100 million going to do for you? Apple has over $150 billion in cash just sitting around. What the hell is another $50 billion going to do for them?
There is no money out there outside the G-20 for both a smartphone and a computer. These folks are not interested in smaller and faster. They just want and need something they can afford that works. There is the potential out there for a billion sales of a workable ubuntu phone. As Americans, you have no idea, as it is literally impossible for you to walk into a retailer and test drive a computer with linux installed, in spite of the fact that every major manufacture sells computers outside the USA with linux installed. You just cannot find one on their USA website or in a USA store.
I might also note that 16 of the top 20 laptops sold by amazon are priced at less than $350, with 3 of the other 4 from apple. Apple'so A7 chip was considered desktop class. The A8 is much improved. The cost of these processors is about $20. Intel's best efforts at a mobile processor sells for $280, their server processors more than a grand. Connect the dots.
The day I can dock my smartphone into a laptop shell is the day I get rid of my Apple products. And so will a lot of schools and corporations.
First, the market determines what is a world-changing concept. I don;t see a lot of Ubuntu phones around, so maybe its not so world-changing after all, despite your obvious infatuation.
Second, Apple's $150 billion in cash does not belong to one individual. Yes, it's true a person with $100 million doesn't really have a need for the next $100 million, but my share of Apple's cash is no where near $100 million. Not yet, but I'm hopeful. So your comparison is not appropriate.
And as for Apple owning the world by selling less costly PCs and smartphones... in what way would it own the world? In the same manner that Windows owns the PC world with its 85% share? Or in the same manner that Android owns the smartphone world with its 85% share? No thank you very much, sir! Apple owns that portion of the world that makes most sense to an unabashed capitalist like me; they own one of the world's most valuable brands, several highly profitable global lines of business, and the respect and admiration of the vast majority of their customers. The world is not enough!
As usual, DED's Op-ED doesn't make sense. When Jobs declared the thermonuclear war on Android in 2010, Samsung's profit was a fraction of what it is now, in the $1B-$3B range. Samsung revenue/profit catapulted after Jobs's war declaration surpassing Apple's in 3Q 2013.
Btw Xiaomi held the number 3 spot for all of 8 hours.
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-30/how-tight-is-smartphone-market-xiaomi-joins-samsung-apple-in-top-3-for-only-a-few-hours.html
Dude(sic)
People holding off to buy the 6 was obvious from the iOS market share decline... OKaaaaaay.
It's 'fewer' top end phones, not 'less' - and Xiaomi certainly do make top end phones. Compare the S5 with the Mi 4: http://www.gsmarena.com/compare.php3?idPhone1=6033&idPhone2=6518
Lenovo, LG, Oppo, One +1, Huawei, Nexus and their ilk have taken sales from the S5. I think I did mention once or twice that it was the lack of S5 sales that were the main part of Samsung's problem, so I don't know why you are pretending I didn't. I think it has been suggested to you before that you read and try and comprehend what other people write.
If Apple were the cause of Samsung's problems then the iOS market share should have increased, not declined. The iP6 may well steal market share from Android high end phones, but it is too early to tell. I doubt it will as the iPhone is, as always, far too expensive for the majority of people, which is probably the main reason Apple has a large market share in the US, but typically less than half that elsewhere. Most people who live in the US simply do not appreciate how expensive iPhones are overseas and how high their price is in proportion to peoples incomes.
Oh, my. Where to begin. Okay, here's the thing. The vast majority of Samsung's mobile segment profits come from its high-end smartphones. Agreed? Okay, if peeps who buy Samsung's high-end phones held off on buying a new Samsung high-end phone because they were waiting to see the new iPhone, then this would hurt the profitable part of Samsung's business. Thus, the wait for the new iPhones hit Samsung's profits. Still with me?
Now, if more peeps bought Samsung low-end phones, or less peeps bought Samsung low-end phones, the impact on Samsung's profits wouldn't change much in either direction, because there's so little profit per unit on those phones in the first place. Those phones are manufactured as filler; to keep Samsung's production lines busy in between runs of the profitable high-end phones and to support economies of scale in Samsung's own component and materials supply chain. So if Xiaomi's phones cut into Samsung's sales of low-end phones, this isn't what hurt Samsung's profits. And Xiaomi doesn't make sufficient quantities of its high-end line to impact Samsung at the high end. So simple.
IMO what Sog35 said is absolutely correct as far as all evidence shows, that i can see at any rate. Can you show evidence that a large smart phone was a success prior to iPhone 6 and 6+? It seems reasonable to believe Tim that Apple had to wait till technologies advanced to a point where they could produce a successful larger phone that met Apple's own high benchmarks. Not a POS just to sate a media clamoring, well of course we all know that clamoring media were paid by Sammy in the first place to say that ... kind of a funny vicious circle in hindsight. Or spiral of death to call it by another name.
Sammy should have had a performance clause in those media payouts.
You don't appear to be reading the relevant posts.
Have you even looked at Xiaomi's line-up? I'm going to guess not. Of course they're stealing away Sammy's premium sales at least in China if not in other select markets.
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Xiaomi-Mi-4-vs-Samsung-Galaxy-S5-vs-LG-G3-specs-comparison_id58475
Before you jump in with dismissing China's sales as not all that important note that even Apple says China will be it's biggest profit driver within another couple of years, surpassing the US. Tim Cook doesn't jump when other countries have complaints or concerns (ie Europe) but he'll drop what he's doing on a moment's notice to make a special trip to China at the least sign of trouble. Suppose profits might have something to do with that?
Actually, There was just filling in for Nokia's position of dominant cheap phone maker. And no one really noticed.
I was attempting to avoid the use of profanity at the expense of accuracy. ????
Maybe, Samsung execs won't be getting a large bonus this year. That seems to be the whole point of this article with some voodoo readings of market data. I see little in the way of facts. Just one opinion and assumption after another. Nice job.
Oh, my. Where to begin. Okay, here's the thing. The vast majority of Samsung's mobile segment profits come from its high-end smartphones. Agreed? Okay, if peeps who buy Samsung's high-end phones held off on buying a new Samsung high-end phone because they were waiting to see the new iPhone, then this would hurt the profitable part of Samsung's business. Thus, the wait for the new iPhones hit Samsung's profits. Still with me?
Now, if more peeps bought Samsung low-end phones, or less peeps bought Samsung low-end phones, the impact on Samsung's profits wouldn't change much in either direction, because there's so little profit per unit on those phones in the first place. Those phones are manufactured as filler; to keep Samsung's production lines busy in between runs of the profitable high-end phones and to support economies of scale in Samsung's own component and materials supply chain. So if Xiaomi's phones cut into Samsung's sales of low-end phones, this isn't what hurt Samsung's profits. And Xiaomi doesn't make sufficient quantities of its high-end line to impact Samsung at the high end. So simple.
You and Sog still don't get it. Look at the specs and price of the S5 and then look at the specs and price of the Xiaomi Mi 4, the One +1 etc. These are not low-end phone competitors. They are going head to head with the S5 in specs and yet cost a lot less. Those who wanted a bit more known quality bought the LG G2, Sony Z2 , Z3 etc. Xiaomi on it's own did not nick Samsung's profits, it's the plethora of Android phones with comparable specs that did. I don't believe any significant proportion of high-end spec Android phone users have been eschewing the S5 and waiting for the iPhone 6. Do you know of any market data that shows iOS market share gaining over Android?
Ummm.... Yeah, I think they are. The M4 is looks to be comparable in every way with Samsung's latest S5 smartphone, except in price. Xiaomi's flagship is $300 less. As a bonus it looks just like Apple's older iPhone models, and likely perceived as a premium build despite the lower cost.
Let me ask it this way:
If there was no such thing as Apple do you think Samsung's profits would have dropped 75%? HELL NO. They would be dominating the high end phones.
If there was no such thing as Xiaomi do you think Samsung's profits would have dropped 75%. HELL YES.
If you do SIMPLETON logic you might think Xiaomi is the cause for Samsung's drop.
But you would be TOTALLY WRONG.
Samsung is selling basicaly the same amount of phones as last year. They are just selling way less top end phones.
Xiaomi does not sell top end phones.
This is like saying BMW is hurting because Ford F150 sales are up. No. They are not catering to the same customer. Xiaomi is NOT catering to the potential Galaxy buyer. One phone cost $700 the other $200.
Using your SIMPLETON logic that just because Xiaomi units sales are up mean they are stealing share from Samsung is IDIOTIC.
If you beleive that then its OTHER that is killing Samsung. OTHER unit sales are up 41%!
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS25224914
Vendor
2014Q3 Shipment Volumes
2014Q3 Market Share
2013Q3 Shipment Volumes
2013Q3 Market Share
3Q14/3Q13 Change
1. Samsung
78.1
23.8%
85.0
32.5%
-8.2%
2. Apple
39.3
12.0%
33.8
12.9%
16.1%
3. Xiaomi
17.3
5.3%
5.6
2.1%
211.3%
4. Lenovo*
16.9
5.2%
12.3
4.7%
38.0%
4. LG*
16.8
5.1%
12.0
4.6%
39.8%
Others
159.2
48.6%
113.0
43.2%
40.8%
Total
327.6
100.0%
261.7
100.0%
25.2%
But of course thats not TRUE. The Other brands are POS cheap sheet mostly and are not stealing any share from Samsung top end.
Wrong, wrong, wrong -- as usual.
(bloomberg)
There is no evidence that Samsung's Galaxy sales in NA declined (by its main competitor Apple). There is however strong evidence that Samsung's high-end sales is wiped out in China by its domestic competitors Xiaomi, Huawei, and Lenovo so far in 2014.
You can't change China from the outside. Foxconn et al is better today because of Apple.
China's politics are one thing, but treating the workers justly is what Apple can do. Foxconn wants to make a profit too, and if Apple says it can and will evolve away from their infrastructure if they don't treat Apple Subcontracted work force with respect. Profit is a powerful force for good, too.
Let's ask Foxconn workers what they think about your opinion. They must be a happy bunch, no?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/05/woman-nearly-died-making-ipad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides
No one is suggesting that Samsung the conglomerate will be going out of business following this news.
But we're in the greatest time in smartphone history.
And Samsung just had a huge drop in profits in smartphones.
Someone at Samsung is freaking out now... probably a few someones...
And I don't think Samsung's tablets and PCs will save the day either.
The mobile phone division has been generating most of Samsung's profits, the numbers I see are something like 70% drop in mobile div profits and 49% for the company as a whole. That is a huge drop in profits for both the mobile div and Samsung as a whole. I think it's not just someone at Samsung who is freaking out, it's everyone.
On top of that, Samsung's solution to plunging smart phone unit sales is to sell two new mid-price phones. So they seem to be abandoning the high end market (who can blame them?) and entrenching themselves deeper in the Android race to the bottom. Between Apple and the Chinese chewing them up from both ends of the market, and Google resisting every effort Samsung makes to meaningfully differentiate their phones, Samsung's proverbial goose is cooked.
Business Insider for once has the story right:
http://www.businessinsider.com/samsung-v-apple-smartphone-sales-and-profits-2014-10
the larger new iPhone 6's are indeed crushing SS high-end sales. even SS admits it. this holiday quarter will be a massacre.
have to note this also blows away the many Tim Cook bashers here and elsewhere. not offering larger screen iPhone models from near the beginning was unquestsionably a Steve Jobs mistake - a big one. SS filled that vacuum to get a large foothold in prime markets. Clearly after Cook took over he reversed this blind spot and got Apple to work developing these new models.
of course it's not just screen size. Touch ID is plainly the key "differentiating feature" that consumers - especially those with assets to lose - really want as digital security becomes more and more of a widespread top concern. not only is SS's version second-rate, nobody trusts Android anyway. And Cook also rightfully gets credit for setting that course for Apple when he bought AuthenTech in 2012, his first year as CEO.
Just posted this in a different thread. If you absolutely positively want to keep the government out of your personal phone a pass-code might be a better idea than using Touch ID.
A US District Judge in Virginia has ruled that while you can't be required to reveal your pass-code to unlock your phone your fingerprint doesn't have the same legal protection. It's fair game and refusing to provide a fingerprint for unlocking may land you in jail. So what's the difference, why is a pass-code secure from law enforcement but TouchID might not be? The Judge opined that collecting a fingerprint is akin to taking a DNA or handwriting sample while revealing a pass-code is offering up personal knowledge.
Of course there is evidence. Apple's iPhone units are going up 20-30% the last 6 months. In the Dec quarter it may go up 30-40%. Where do you think those new sales are coming from? They are coming from former Samsung users.
Just because Xiaomi/Huawei are selling more units does not mean they are stealing top end sales. Most of there sales are probably going to people who are going off of feature phones.
Again you are using SIMPLETON logic. Using your logic it is actually the catergory OTHERS that is stealing share from SAmsung. Their unit sales went up 40% last year.
And your table above does not mean JACK SHIT because its not divided by smartphone class. You need to get a table that shows ONLY top end phone sales and who sold the most. You will see that Samsung's top end units are down to about 50,000,000 vs 90,000,000 in 2013. You will see that Apple's top end is up from 150,000,000 to 190,000,000 in 2014. Guess where those extra 40,000,000 high end sales for Apple came from?????
1) Sure, you have no data to back up your claim. You have absolute no data that show Samsung's premium unit sales and, further your stat is completely wrong. According to Morgan Stanley Research, Samsung sold about 130M Galaxy Premium models in 2013. Localytics likewise reported that slightly less than half of Samsung's smartphones are their marquee Galaxy S models, excluding the Note lines (early 2014).
2) Let's borrow your SIMPLETON fanboi logic from the second paragraph. Just because Apple sells more units does not mean they are stealing top end sales. How do you know if low-end, not high-end, Samsung users are moving to Apple? You ain't jack squat.
3) Samsung's global unit sales is DOWN by 7M or -8+% YoY.
4) it doesn't matter whether Xiaomi smartphone is high or low end -- contrary to your batsh*t nonsense, their phones are stealing Samsung's high-end sales. And that's all it matters, according to all the data we have, it's mostly Xiaomi, Lenovo and other Chinese companies stealing Samsung's sales, not Apple, so far in 2014.
Just posted this in a different thread. If you absolutely positively want to keep the government out of your personal phone a pass-code might be a better idea than using Touch ID.
A US District Judge in Virginia has ruled that while you can't be required to reveal your pass-code to unlock your phone your fingerprint doesn't have the same legal protection. It's fair game and refusing to provide a fingerprint for unlocking may land you in jail. So what's the difference, why is a pass-code secure from law enforcement but TouchID might not be? The Judge opined that collecting a fingerprint is akin to taking a DNA or handwriting sample while revealing a pass-code is offering up personal knowledge.
that's not the scenario i worry about. i'm not a crook or wikileaker. it's identity theft by real crooks i worry about.