Then my point is correct. Samsung/Android spanked Apple again.
I think it's funny to compare a manufacturer that (by their own website) sells 144 models of mobile phones to Apple's 3, then brag about their marketshare. That would be like Ford bragging about outselling Zonda.
The bottom line is that Apple makes more money per unit sold, and when you're selling the numbers Apple is selling, that's a LOT of money. Apple isn't having to pay Microsoft to use iOS, they aren't having to reskin an OS that someone else made, and they have the confidence to announce 'sold' numbers at their quarterly reports, rather than 'shipped' numbers.
Keep in mind that if 'shipped' numbers meant anything AOL should still be flourishing, considering all the cds they 'shipped' with their software to potential customers from 2000-2005.
Yeah? Why are those posts trying so hard to support Samsung who has one of the largest equipment capitalizations in industry, yet a relatively tiny profit margin?
Or were you showing an inability to read with comprehension and thought those posts were supporting Apple?
Japanese companies like Sony and Honda are doing so much better than Samsung profit-wise. Uh-huh.
I think it's funny to compare a manufacturer that (by their own website) sells 144 models of mobile phones to Apple's 3, then brag about their marketshare. That would be like Ford bragging about outselling Zonda.
The bottom line is that Apple makes more money per unit sold, and when you're selling the numbers Apple is selling, that's a LOT of money. Apple isn't having to pay Microsoft to use iOS, they aren't having to reskin an OS that someone else made, and they have the confidence to announce 'sold' numbers at their quarterly reports, rather than 'shipped' numbers.
Keep in mind that if 'shipped' numbers meant anything AOL should still be flourishing, considering all the cds they 'shipped' with their software to potential customers from 2000-2005.
When Samsung reports their revenue numbers it's based on sold, not just shipped. Same with Apple. The only real difference is when Apple reports channel sales then many here assume them all to be in consumer's hands (which isn't factual). With anyone else's revenue reports some assume most will never be purchased by a consumer, yet with no evidence that it's a regular occurrence. Outside of a couple of early tablet releases, I don't recall any claims that Android phones in general are sitting around warehouses all over the world for months unsold. Perhaps you have a citation or two you can link to?
In any case the revenue was realized for both Apple and Samsung when they were paid for, no matter if it was money from Walmart, Orange, ATT or direct from an end-user. The attempt to make a distinction between shipped and sold is bogus in most cases. A channel sale is just what it sounds like.
Given all that the chaebols - such as Samsung - have been able to get away with in Korea in the past few decades, I would not boast about this if I were you.
Wall Street firms get away with a lot of stuff too. The scale of corruption in other countries cannot bring about a world recession like Wall Street can (and did). Before you judge illegal and corrupt practices in other countries take a look in your own backyard.
When Samsung reports their revenue numbers it's based on sold, not just shipped. Same with Apple. The only real difference is when Apple reports channel sales then many here assume them all to be in consumer's hands (which isn't factual). With anyone else's revenue reports some assume most will never be purchased by a consumer, yet with no evidence that it's a regular occurrence. Outside of a couple of early tablet releases, I don't recall any claims that Android phones in general are sitting around warehouses all over the world for months unsold. Perhaps you have a citation or two you can link to?
In any case the revenue was realized for both Apple and Samsung when they were paid for, no matter if it was money from Walmart, Orange, ATT or direct from an end-user. The attempt to make a distinction between shipped and sold is bogus in most cases. A channel sale is just what it sounds like.
Where has Apple specifically noted their sales are 'channel' sales? I've never heard that clarification mentioned in their quarterly conference calls. Their wording is 'sales', not 'channel sales'. There is a differentiation between sales to end users and sales to retailers, I'll agree, but that isn't implied in Apple's wording. As for stored Android phones, and this is only anecdotal, but I have never heard of a retailer being sold out of the 'newest and latest' Android phone. However, Apple is still having to take reservations for iPhone 4S purchases going on 3 months after it's release in the US. Apparently, keeping 144 varieties of phone stocked to various retailers is far easier than keeping 3 iPhones in stock.
If an item is sold on on terms of Net 30 (or longer, as is common with super-retailers such as WalMart), when does Apple and Samsung consider it 'sold' for their recording? When WalMart takes delivery? Did HP consider their TouchPads 'sold' to Best Buy before BB returned 90% of the stock?
Since Apple is selling every iPhone 4S (and probably nearly every 4, and most all 3Gs) it can currently manufacturer, I stick to my argument that Apple reporting 'sold' numbers are far more of an accurate representation of the market than Samsung's 'shipped' numbers. I don't think I have ever heard of anyone having to reserve a Galaxy phone months after release. That is where 'shipped' and 'sold' make the difference.
Since Apple is selling every iPhone 4S (and probably nearly every 4, and most all 3Gs) it can currently manufacturer, I stick to my argument that Apple reporting 'sold' numbers are far more of an accurate representation of the market than Samsung's 'shipped' numbers. I don't think I have ever heard of anyone having to reserve a Galaxy phone months after release. That is where 'shipped' and 'sold' make the difference.
They'd be different only if the shipments weren't paid for. Apple doesn't earn any more for the hardware once the retailer sells it to an end-user. The sale happened when the wholesaler( or whoever) paid for the shipment, just the same as Samsung counts a sale. And those sales/revenue's claimed in the quarterly results are audited for both Apple and Samsung.
EDIT: I noticed your additional question about when the revenue is counted when product is shipped to Walmart as an example. Their stated terms to me were 90 days, prompting me to dump them as a client 4 or 5 years ago. Anyway, both Samsung and Apple are allowed to claim revenue once title has been transferred, a price is determined and collection of the bill for that product is very likely. That doesn't mean money has necessarily changed hands yet for either company in the period the revenue is claimed, but chances of not getting would be slim. That's part of the rules that govern recognition of a sale for each of them, as well as all the other big guys.
Why are you guys so worried about how many smartphones Samsung sold. If you really love Apple unconditionally and are willing to buy all of their products without a second thought what do you care how many people like Samsung better? Sometimes I think Apple fans are the most insecure people on the planet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Why are you guys worried about what Apple fans are supposedly worried about? If you really aren't one of us, why do you care how Apple fans think? Sometimes you fantasize that Apple fans are the most insecure people on the planet.
Nice try at deflection, but he poses a good question, to which I'd like to add my own. Why do Apple fanboys need to always bash Android products in the comments section anytime one is mentioned?
The consensus is that Samsung likely moved 35 million smartphones, at least, over the last quarter, maintaining its global lead.
Quote:
[I]t appears that the latest and greatest iPhone hardly made a ding in Samsung's sales, and likely failed to give Apple the spark it needed to catch up in sales.
Quote:
UBS predicts 30 million iPhone 4S were sold in Oct.-Dec. 2011.
Comments
Ah, you're awake. Good.
It begs the question why you're here at all, then, if this is your position.
To read up on android news since that's what ai has become..... an android blog.
Hey, we all know why they call you Slappy so I wouldn't get too far into this if I were you.
Ok that was actually funny.
Then my point is correct. Samsung/Android spanked Apple again.
I think it's funny to compare a manufacturer that (by their own website) sells 144 models of mobile phones to Apple's 3, then brag about their marketshare. That would be like Ford bragging about outselling Zonda.
The bottom line is that Apple makes more money per unit sold, and when you're selling the numbers Apple is selling, that's a LOT of money. Apple isn't having to pay Microsoft to use iOS, they aren't having to reskin an OS that someone else made, and they have the confidence to announce 'sold' numbers at their quarterly reports, rather than 'shipped' numbers.
Keep in mind that if 'shipped' numbers meant anything AOL should still be flourishing, considering all the cds they 'shipped' with their software to potential customers from 2000-2005.
Yeah? Why are those posts trying so hard to support Samsung who has one of the largest equipment capitalizations in industry, yet a relatively tiny profit margin?
Or were you showing an inability to read with comprehension and thought those posts were supporting Apple?
Japanese companies like Sony and Honda are doing so much better than Samsung profit-wise. Uh-huh.
I think it's funny to compare a manufacturer that (by their own website) sells 144 models of mobile phones to Apple's 3, then brag about their marketshare. That would be like Ford bragging about outselling Zonda.
The bottom line is that Apple makes more money per unit sold, and when you're selling the numbers Apple is selling, that's a LOT of money. Apple isn't having to pay Microsoft to use iOS, they aren't having to reskin an OS that someone else made, and they have the confidence to announce 'sold' numbers at their quarterly reports, rather than 'shipped' numbers.
Keep in mind that if 'shipped' numbers meant anything AOL should still be flourishing, considering all the cds they 'shipped' with their software to potential customers from 2000-2005.
When Samsung reports their revenue numbers it's based on sold, not just shipped. Same with Apple. The only real difference is when Apple reports channel sales then many here assume them all to be in consumer's hands (which isn't factual). With anyone else's revenue reports some assume most will never be purchased by a consumer, yet with no evidence that it's a regular occurrence. Outside of a couple of early tablet releases, I don't recall any claims that Android phones in general are sitting around warehouses all over the world for months unsold. Perhaps you have a citation or two you can link to?
In any case the revenue was realized for both Apple and Samsung when they were paid for, no matter if it was money from Walmart, Orange, ATT or direct from an end-user. The attempt to make a distinction between shipped and sold is bogus in most cases. A channel sale is just what it sounds like.
Given all that the chaebols - such as Samsung - have been able to get away with in Korea in the past few decades, I would not boast about this if I were you.
Wall Street firms get away with a lot of stuff too. The scale of corruption in other countries cannot bring about a world recession like Wall Street can (and did). Before you judge illegal and corrupt practices in other countries take a look in your own backyard.
When Samsung reports their revenue numbers it's based on sold, not just shipped. Same with Apple. The only real difference is when Apple reports channel sales then many here assume them all to be in consumer's hands (which isn't factual). With anyone else's revenue reports some assume most will never be purchased by a consumer, yet with no evidence that it's a regular occurrence. Outside of a couple of early tablet releases, I don't recall any claims that Android phones in general are sitting around warehouses all over the world for months unsold. Perhaps you have a citation or two you can link to?
In any case the revenue was realized for both Apple and Samsung when they were paid for, no matter if it was money from Walmart, Orange, ATT or direct from an end-user. The attempt to make a distinction between shipped and sold is bogus in most cases. A channel sale is just what it sounds like.
Where has Apple specifically noted their sales are 'channel' sales? I've never heard that clarification mentioned in their quarterly conference calls. Their wording is 'sales', not 'channel sales'. There is a differentiation between sales to end users and sales to retailers, I'll agree, but that isn't implied in Apple's wording. As for stored Android phones, and this is only anecdotal, but I have never heard of a retailer being sold out of the 'newest and latest' Android phone. However, Apple is still having to take reservations for iPhone 4S purchases going on 3 months after it's release in the US. Apparently, keeping 144 varieties of phone stocked to various retailers is far easier than keeping 3 iPhones in stock.
If an item is sold on on terms of Net 30 (or longer, as is common with super-retailers such as WalMart), when does Apple and Samsung consider it 'sold' for their recording? When WalMart takes delivery? Did HP consider their TouchPads 'sold' to Best Buy before BB returned 90% of the stock?
Since Apple is selling every iPhone 4S (and probably nearly every 4, and most all 3Gs) it can currently manufacturer, I stick to my argument that Apple reporting 'sold' numbers are far more of an accurate representation of the market than Samsung's 'shipped' numbers. I don't think I have ever heard of anyone having to reserve a Galaxy phone months after release. That is where 'shipped' and 'sold' make the difference.
Since Apple is selling every iPhone 4S (and probably nearly every 4, and most all 3Gs) it can currently manufacturer, I stick to my argument that Apple reporting 'sold' numbers are far more of an accurate representation of the market than Samsung's 'shipped' numbers. I don't think I have ever heard of anyone having to reserve a Galaxy phone months after release. That is where 'shipped' and 'sold' make the difference.
They'd be different only if the shipments weren't paid for. Apple doesn't earn any more for the hardware once the retailer sells it to an end-user. The sale happened when the wholesaler( or whoever) paid for the shipment, just the same as Samsung counts a sale. And those sales/revenue's claimed in the quarterly results are audited for both Apple and Samsung.
EDIT: I noticed your additional question about when the revenue is counted when product is shipped to Walmart as an example. Their stated terms to me were 90 days, prompting me to dump them as a client 4 or 5 years ago. Anyway, both Samsung and Apple are allowed to claim revenue once title has been transferred, a price is determined and collection of the bill for that product is very likely. That doesn't mean money has necessarily changed hands yet for either company in the period the revenue is claimed, but chances of not getting would be slim. That's part of the rules that govern recognition of a sale for each of them, as well as all the other big guys.
Why are you guys so worried about how many smartphones Samsung sold. If you really love Apple unconditionally and are willing to buy all of their products without a second thought what do you care how many people like Samsung better? Sometimes I think Apple fans are the most insecure people on the planet.
Why are you guys worried about what Apple fans are supposedly worried about? If you really aren't one of us, why do you care how Apple fans think? Sometimes you fantasize that Apple fans are the most insecure people on the planet.
Nice try at deflection, but he poses a good question, to which I'd like to add my own. Why do Apple fanboys need to always bash Android products in the comments section anytime one is mentioned?
And FYI, here's an update:
The consensus is that Samsung likely moved 35 million smartphones, at least, over the last quarter, maintaining its global lead.
[I]t appears that the latest and greatest iPhone hardly made a ding in Samsung's sales, and likely failed to give Apple the spark it needed to catch up in sales.
UBS predicts 30 million iPhone 4S were sold in Oct.-Dec. 2011.
Suck on that!