I'm sure Samsung could make OK money in mobile if they stay #2 in the high end of the market.
But being the second-cheapest at the low end is certain doom.
Xiaomi is already waiting at the bottom of the race-to-the-bottom cliff.
LG is catching up real fast with some very nice devices. I think it's time someone else was number 2. It would make things much more interesting.
So what's the solution? Writing about the problem is easy, and helps no one.
Well, I could say that you can't solve a problem until you've diagnosed exactly what the problem might be. (grin)
But a solution? At the time I suggested that an Android phone maker differentiate on hardware. You could, for example, do the best phone/camera combo out there and look to serve camera enthusiasts. (As Nokia did.) Or you could hook up with Amazon and try license the Kindle technology, and make the very best phone/e-book reader combination. (Dedicated page turn buttons, screen suitable for reading in bright light, etc.)
You can't, as someone else suggested, differentiate too much on software. It's Android, after all, and one just has to look at how little success Microsoft and Blackberry are having trying to add yet another software platform to the mix.
They FINALLY went from copying the 2008 iPhone 3G to copying the 2010 iPhone 4. But there are still exciting new places they can go!
Well dont forget the copying of the iP5S with the Galaxy Alpha. I unlike Samsung not for their copying but their business ethics and run by a family known to conduct illegal activities yet allowed to do so since N Korea allows the rich to get away with murder.
Well, I could say that you can't solve a problem until you've diagnosed exactly what the problem might be. (grin)
But a solution? At the time I suggested that an Android phone maker differentiate on hardware. You could, for example, do the best phone/camera combo out there and look to serve camera enthusiasts. (As Nokia did.) Or you could hook up with Amazon and try license the Kindle technology, and make the very best phone/e-book reader combination. (Dedicated page turn buttons, screen suitable for reading in bright light, etc.)
You can't, as someone else suggested, differentiate too much on software. It's Android, after all, and one just has to look at how little success Microsoft and Blackberry are having trying to add yet another software platform to the mix.
Good answer, and one that's grounded in reality. I'm always reading how making the hardware and software is the best route, but those people seem to have forgotten how that went for BB, and Palm. There's no one single answer, but Android has at least allowed the likes of HTC, Motorola, LG, etc.. to survive, and sometimes just surviving is winning.
Samsung Mobile made $1.75 billion in operating profit in the last quarter.
The advertising budget in 2013 was $14B.
So I can safely assume that they spent at least $2B on advertising last quarter.
Throw in taxes and other admin expenses and the mobile division could be operating at a loss.
Um, I'm no corporate accountant, but I'm pretty sure marketing goes in the Expenses column, which is subtracted from the Revenues column, resulting in the Profits column. You don't subtract the marketing costs *after* you announce your net (operating) profit.
Everyone needs to relax. They're Tech companies who could care less about you, just the dollar in your pocket. BOTH of them. The sooner people realize this, the better. Some pray for the demise of samsung but without competition the industry goes stale. Besides, apple will at some point lose their dominance. It's written in the history of every past successful company. It could take 100 years but it will happen. Just enjoy what you use and appreciate just how far all this technology has come.
The Galaxy S3 was lightning in a bottle and Samsung should have realised that and done things differently.
It was nice while it lasted, but I've now moved on from laughing at Samsung's expense. I'm on the verge of ordering a Retina 5K iMac and plan to start working with FCP X and am really excited about it!
I think the issue here is not even about copying as such; strategic "copying" (perhaps "inspiration" is a better word, because it's not exactly the same thing) can be highly beneficial. Apple themselves are testament to that.
The broader issue for Samsung is, I think, that they are fundamentally reactionary in nature. It's true that they introduce some features to market before their competitors, but they aren't making strategic decisions around these functions; they basically throw everything at the wall and hope something will stick. When something does stick, they do grab hold of it and continue to pursue it; this is fair enough, but if you keep flinging features around randomly with the hope that something will hold, you are not building a sustainable business - you are simply in a state of constant kneejerk behaviour and you are not necessarily customer-focused.
It seems to me that this behaviour is now starting to bite Samsung. This demonstrates the stark contrast between Samsung and Apple, I think. Yes, Apple has its ups and downs, but it has longevity because it is fundamentally strategic and because it puts enormous thought and care into each feature. Almost as importantly, Apple are very careful and slow to introduce many new features - I think they understand that bombarding your user with lots of random crap only leads to confusion and segmentation, it doesn't build a really strong product in a fundamental way.
I think Samsung need to go back to the drawing board and consider where their strengths really lie. They need to cut back - keep their model range lean and mean, and renew a focus on quality as the central tenant to everything they do.
Samsung have huge potential and in many ways, their presence in the market (despite some of the blatant copying) does bring about competition more broadly. But they have to cease this approach of just hoping that stuff will happen because they are throwing lots and lots of random features out there into the market.
I'm sure Samsung could make OK money in mobile if they stay #2 in the high end of the market.
But being the second-cheapest at the low end is certain doom.
Xiaomi is already waiting at the bottom of the race-to-the-bottom cliff.
There is also Huawei and Lenovo, both making huge strides in the mobile market. Have you seen the new Huawei Ascend Mate 7, pretty nice phone for almost 300 dollars cheaper, would take that over a Samsung Galaxy Note 4 anyday. Even the new Xiaomi M4 is a much better buy at only $450. Samsung just can't compete at these prices, especially when these phones offer a more enjoyable experience with the build quality to back it up.
Comments
LG is catching up real fast with some very nice devices. I think it's time someone else was number 2. It would make things much more interesting.
LG is catching up real fast with some very nice devices. I think it's time someone else was number 2. It would make things much more interesting.
Good.
Because decent hardware > obscene market budget.
So what's the solution? Writing about the problem is easy, and helps no one.
Well, I could say that you can't solve a problem until you've diagnosed exactly what the problem might be. (grin)
But a solution? At the time I suggested that an Android phone maker differentiate on hardware. You could, for example, do the best phone/camera combo out there and look to serve camera enthusiasts. (As Nokia did.) Or you could hook up with Amazon and try license the Kindle technology, and make the very best phone/e-book reader combination. (Dedicated page turn buttons, screen suitable for reading in bright light, etc.)
You can't, as someone else suggested, differentiate too much on software. It's Android, after all, and one just has to look at how little success Microsoft and Blackberry are having trying to add yet another software platform to the mix.
Oh dear god no. I forgot about these. And watch me forget about them again.
They FINALLY went from copying the 2008 iPhone 3G to copying the 2010 iPhone 4. But there are still exciting new places they can go!
Well dont forget the copying of the iP5S with the Galaxy Alpha. I unlike Samsung not for their copying but their business ethics and run by a family known to conduct illegal activities yet allowed to do so since N Korea allows the rich to get away with murder.
Good answer, and one that's grounded in reality. I'm always reading how making the hardware and software is the best route, but those people seem to have forgotten how that went for BB, and Palm. There's no one single answer, but Android has at least allowed the likes of HTC, Motorola, LG, etc.. to survive, and sometimes just surviving is winning.
Samsung Mobile made $1.75 billion in operating profit in the last quarter.
The advertising budget in 2013 was $14B.
So I can safely assume that they spent at least $2B on advertising last quarter.
Throw in taxes and other admin expenses and the mobile division could be operating at a loss.
Um, I'm no corporate accountant, but I'm pretty sure marketing goes in the Expenses column, which is subtracted from the Revenues column, resulting in the Profits column. You don't subtract the marketing costs *after* you announce your net (operating) profit.
Samdung just another Android company.
I got banned from MacRumors for calling Samsung names (???). How refreshing that on AI we can call out Samsung for exactly what it is.
The Galaxy S3 was lightning in a bottle and Samsung should have realised that and done things differently.
It was nice while it lasted, but I've now moved on from laughing at Samsung's expense. I'm on the verge of ordering a Retina 5K iMac and plan to start working with FCP X and am really excited about it!
I think the issue here is not even about copying as such; strategic "copying" (perhaps "inspiration" is a better word, because it's not exactly the same thing) can be highly beneficial. Apple themselves are testament to that.
The broader issue for Samsung is, I think, that they are fundamentally reactionary in nature. It's true that they introduce some features to market before their competitors, but they aren't making strategic decisions around these functions; they basically throw everything at the wall and hope something will stick. When something does stick, they do grab hold of it and continue to pursue it; this is fair enough, but if you keep flinging features around randomly with the hope that something will hold, you are not building a sustainable business - you are simply in a state of constant kneejerk behaviour and you are not necessarily customer-focused.
It seems to me that this behaviour is now starting to bite Samsung. This demonstrates the stark contrast between Samsung and Apple, I think. Yes, Apple has its ups and downs, but it has longevity because it is fundamentally strategic and because it puts enormous thought and care into each feature. Almost as importantly, Apple are very careful and slow to introduce many new features - I think they understand that bombarding your user with lots of random crap only leads to confusion and segmentation, it doesn't build a really strong product in a fundamental way.
I think Samsung need to go back to the drawing board and consider where their strengths really lie. They need to cut back - keep their model range lean and mean, and renew a focus on quality as the central tenant to everything they do.
Samsung have huge potential and in many ways, their presence in the market (despite some of the blatant copying) does bring about competition more broadly. But they have to cease this approach of just hoping that stuff will happen because they are throwing lots and lots of random features out there into the market.
There is also Huawei and Lenovo, both making huge strides in the mobile market. Have you seen the new Huawei Ascend Mate 7, pretty nice phone for almost 300 dollars cheaper, would take that over a Samsung Galaxy Note 4 anyday. Even the new Xiaomi M4 is a much better buy at only $450. Samsung just can't compete at these prices, especially when these phones offer a more enjoyable experience with the build quality to back it up.