Why Samsung's smartphones are winning in shipments but losing in business

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 28
    Anyone who has been keeping up on current events with mobile devices has noticed that Samsung and the carriers immediately blink and start selling the device at a discount.
    While it shows that Samsung has sold a lot of devices, the truth is, it sold them at a loss, in order to try to bolster marketshare. 

    Apple is no stranger to not having the most marketshare of a product. To them, what counts is the quality and the ROI for the development and support of the product.  The last time I saw an iPhone discounted quickly was the 5c. 


    watto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 28
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,969moderator
    melgross said:
    tmay said:
    Who knows, maybe it isn't too late to count MS out of the mobile device segment:

    https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/3/17931870/microsoft-surface-panos-panay-andromeda-pocketable-surface-interview
    I'm not against MS reentering the market, but they wouldn't have a valid business model to generate money with hardware. Best to continue providing productivity apps to the  other two OS's.
    Agreed. The biggest problem for MS was - App availability. If they could not fix it 5 years back, hard to imagine them having a solution NOW.
    That’s the old chicken and the egg argument. It’s also not completely true, though Windows Phone users like to use that argument. The real problems were more complicated. Two main ones. One was Microsoft’s attitude toward phone users. When Win Phone first came out, there were lots of Ads showing , and being narrated as people wanting to get their phones out, quickly do whatever they had to, and quickly putting their phones away again.

    they didn’t understand the dynamic between smartphones and their users. They didn’t want to put their phones away quickly. They wanted to use them, a lot! Microsoft was just thinking about a quick work experience, and that was about it. But that was true years earlier, before the iPhone took smartphones out of the Office, and put them in the hands of people who wanted them for other things as well. So that was a losing strategy.

    then, there was the UI taken from the Zune HD. I’m not going into why they did, but doing that was a major error. Most people simply didn’t like the UI. For a couple of years, it was also very limited in what it did, and how it presented itself. It was also so different, and people simply didn’t like that. Some evidence of that was the response to Win 8. In addition, for the first year, Win Phone 7, which was really just Win Mobil in disguise, didn’t support new phones, just a couple of older models. When they came out with the “real” Win Phone 8 the next year, they abandoned those early users, which didn’t help.

    as far as lack of apps went, we have to remember that the iPhone, in its second year, began with 512 apps in the new App Store. Win Phone had, I think, a couple of thousand. But developers aren’t going to write for an additional platform unless they think it’s viable. Win Phone sales were at best, sluggish. It never got past 6% marketshare, and took some time to get there, upon which it declined. So there was never a real market for apps to grow into. It was the lack of sales that presaged the lack of apps, not the other way around. Microsoft then started to pay developers big bucks to port apps over, but that effort failed as well, as most declined to update those apps because of a lack of downloads. So apps languished.
    Seems like a lack of apps would be a major reason for a lack of sales.  So I think the two interacted, without one necessarily being the dominant issue.
  • Reply 23 of 28
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,969moderator
    claire1 said:
    JWSC said:

    Love reading a well researched DED article.  But I did miss his trademark ‘they’re wrong, here’s why’ punchline.

    I know this may sound odd but, in a way, Apple should be thankful for what Google has done with Android.  Android kneecapped the Windows phone platform before it could really establish itself as the primary alternative to the ‘anything but Apple’ crowd.  The one-two punch of iPhone and Android torpedoed the hegemon RIMM.  Soon after Nokia and Motorola fell by the wayside.  And now Samsung and the Chinese knockoff outfits are shackled to the weak fragmented Android ecosystem.  It’s an Apple world.  And Android just lives in it.

    I agree but I'd rather android be original. What happened to the "mobile keyboards and email are the future" narrative?

    If android didn't release Apple ripoffs I couldn't care less.

    Yes in a way it's good android took over because they royally screwed their partners more than paying Windows to do it for them would have. Now these iKnockoff manufacturers don't know where to turn, when they copy Apple they sell more but when they try to wean off and make something ORIGINAL, they sell almost nothing (Google Glass, Gear watches, Round android wear crap, VR, anything original.)
    Maybe it’s also a blessing that Android so closely mimics iOS.  If Android is a training ground and low. It’s entry to Smaetphone experiences, the fact it looks. and tries to act, like iOS means the transition upmarket that so many eventually make is easier.  
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 28
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,969moderator
    Folio said:
    Good piece. Surprised to see Huawei top phone that cheap in France. Both Sam and Hua deep pockets from other sources. So I wonder if mobile profits there are currently secondary to things like jobs, National infrastructure, etc. Obviously it’s great the world has a wide array of phones penetrating nearly all strata of society. all these phones will be able to watch Apple shows at some point. ;-)
    It was the P20 lite which was available for cheap price in France, not the P20 flagship. 
    Which is called the P20 Pro.  Here in the Philippines...

    P20 Pro 45000 pesos
    P20 22000 pesos
    P20 Lite 13000 pesos

    $1 US is about 54 Philippines pesos.  The Lite is a mere shadow of its better equipped siblings.  


    ronn
  • Reply 25 of 28
    cornchipcornchip Posts: 1,190member
    melgross said:
    This reads like a DED article. No byline.
    And only one repeat sentence! 
  • Reply 26 of 28
    cornchip said:
    melgross said:
    This reads like a DED article. No byline.
    And only one repeat sentence! 

    Aren't those repeat sentences only an anomaly on the forum posts, since sometimes the headlines are rendered as body text?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 28
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,365member
    melgross said:
    tmay said:
    Who knows, maybe it isn't too late to count MS out of the mobile device segment:

    https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/3/17931870/microsoft-surface-panos-panay-andromeda-pocketable-surface-interview
    I'm not against MS reentering the market, but they wouldn't have a valid business model to generate money with hardware. Best to continue providing productivity apps to the  other two OS's.
    Agreed. The biggest problem for MS was - App availability. If they could not fix it 5 years back, hard to imagine them having a solution NOW.
    That’s the old chicken and the egg argument. It’s also not completely true, though Windows Phone users like to use that argument. The real problems were more complicated. Two main ones. One was Microsoft’s attitude toward phone users. When Win Phone first came out, there were lots of Ads showing , and being narrated as people wanting to get their phones out, quickly do whatever they had to, and quickly putting their phones away again.

    they didn’t understand the dynamic between smartphones and their users. They didn’t want to put their phones away quickly. They wanted to use them, a lot! Microsoft was just thinking about a quick work experience, and that was about it. But that was true years earlier, before the iPhone took smartphones out of the Office, and put them in the hands of people who wanted them for other things as well. So that was a losing strategy.

    then, there was the UI taken from the Zune HD. I’m not going into why they did, but doing that was a major error. Most people simply didn’t like the UI. For a couple of years, it was also very limited in what it did, and how it presented itself. It was also so different, and people simply didn’t like that. Some evidence of that was the response to Win 8. In addition, for the first year, Win Phone 7, which was really just Win Mobil in disguise, didn’t support new phones, just a couple of older models. When they came out with the “real” Win Phone 8 the next year, they abandoned those early users, which didn’t help.

    as far as lack of apps went, we have to remember that the iPhone, in its second year, began with 512 apps in the new App Store. Win Phone had, I think, a couple of thousand. But developers aren’t going to write for an additional platform unless they think it’s viable. Win Phone sales were at best, sluggish. It never got past 6% marketshare, and took some time to get there, upon which it declined. So there was never a real market for apps to grow into. It was the lack of sales that presaged the lack of apps, not the other way around. Microsoft then started to pay developers big bucks to port apps over, but that effort failed as well, as most declined to update those apps because of a lack of downloads. So apps languished.
    Seems like a lack of apps would be a major reason for a lack of sales.  So I think the two interacted, without one necessarily being the dominant issue.
    It’s why I describe the problem as the chicken and egg. You don’t have one without the other. But there were plenty of apps at the beginning. The problem was that no one was interested in the platform. It certainly wasn’t one for those who enjoyed their phones. They already had Android and iOS. It wasn’t for business people, who Microsoft was pushing for, because they stripped almost all security features out of the Win Mobile platform. They also stripped out a number of productivity features out.

    the o,atform had an image problem from the first day. It never got over that. Developers didn’t know what to do, because peop,e weren’t picking up on the platform, and neither was the more tradition buyers in government and business.

    is it a wonder that a robust app system didn’t arrive? It wasn’t the lack of apps. It was the lack of interest.
  • Reply 28 of 28
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,998member
    melgross said:
    melgross said:
    tmay said:
    Who knows, maybe it isn't too late to count MS out of the mobile device segment:

    https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/3/17931870/microsoft-surface-panos-panay-andromeda-pocketable-surface-interview
    I'm not against MS reentering the market, but they wouldn't have a valid business model to generate money with hardware. Best to continue providing productivity apps to the  other two OS's.
    Agreed. The biggest problem for MS was - App availability. If they could not fix it 5 years back, hard to imagine them having a solution NOW.
    That’s the old chicken and the egg argument. It’s also not completely true, though Windows Phone users like to use that argument. The real problems were more complicated. Two main ones. One was Microsoft’s attitude toward phone users. When Win Phone first came out, there were lots of Ads showing , and being narrated as people wanting to get their phones out, quickly do whatever they had to, and quickly putting their phones away again.

    they didn’t understand the dynamic between smartphones and their users. They didn’t want to put their phones away quickly. They wanted to use them, a lot! Microsoft was just thinking about a quick work experience, and that was about it. But that was true years earlier, before the iPhone took smartphones out of the Office, and put them in the hands of people who wanted them for other things as well. So that was a losing strategy.

    then, there was the UI taken from the Zune HD. I’m not going into why they did, but doing that was a major error. Most people simply didn’t like the UI. For a couple of years, it was also very limited in what it did, and how it presented itself. It was also so different, and people simply didn’t like that. Some evidence of that was the response to Win 8. In addition, for the first year, Win Phone 7, which was really just Win Mobil in disguise, didn’t support new phones, just a couple of older models. When they came out with the “real” Win Phone 8 the next year, they abandoned those early users, which didn’t help.

    as far as lack of apps went, we have to remember that the iPhone, in its second year, began with 512 apps in the new App Store. Win Phone had, I think, a couple of thousand. But developers aren’t going to write for an additional platform unless they think it’s viable. Win Phone sales were at best, sluggish. It never got past 6% marketshare, and took some time to get there, upon which it declined. So there was never a real market for apps to grow into. It was the lack of sales that presaged the lack of apps, not the other way around. Microsoft then started to pay developers big bucks to port apps over, but that effort failed as well, as most declined to update those apps because of a lack of downloads. So apps languished.
    Seems like a lack of apps would be a major reason for a lack of sales.  So I think the two interacted, without one necessarily being the dominant issue.
    It’s why I describe the problem as the chicken and egg. You don’t have one without the other. But there were plenty of apps at the beginning. 
    I agree, it looks like you're right on this one. As of August 2014 there were over 300,000 apps and games available for download from the Windows Phone Store. Maybe not App Store and Google Play numbers but probably plenty to satisfy most users as well at offer evidence whether developers should expect any success there.
Sign In or Register to comment.