Hmmm, I'm not so sure. Given that Samsung entered the market as late as 2010, I'm amazed they've come this far. Apple had since 2007. That's 3 more years for a total of 5 years. Also, notice how Samsung more than doubled its sales from 2010. Apple didn't get any such growth whatsoever. If anything, Apple just barely squeaked ahead. That's the equivalent of a pro sprinter with a midlife crisis just managing to beat a younger guy at a race who started training last week. With Samsung's phenomenal sales each year, Apple won't have an easy time staying on top.
Your argument is flawed. It has nothing to do with how long you're in the market. It's all about how many carriers you have and Samsung always release phones on more carriers than Apple at the time.
And who said Apple should be on top. I said it's amazing with Samsung portfolio Apple even managed to beat it this quarter.
And no, Samsung didn't enter the market "as late as 2010" either. You're a delusional fan boy.
Your argument is flawed. It has nothing to do with how long you're in the market. It's all about how many carriers you have and Samsung always release phones on more carriers than Apple at the time.
Oh, no. I think time is very much important. It plays a large part in developing a company's brand reputation among customers. You see, many customers won't just buy from a brand that they've never heard of. I think that should've been obvious. Brand loyalty is also what has contributed to Apple's success, something you of all people should know.
Plus the additional years spent in a market allows the company to go through its own tried and true scenarios and to learn from past mistakes while coming up with successful formulas for the next business practices of tomorrow. Time is crucial in giving companies to establish themselves also as a safe place for investment. When you actually get a real, full-time job and start investing in stocks or hiring some hedge fund to do it for you'll know what I mean.
I could go on. But I think the rest is pretty self-evident.
Again, we can keep lying to ourselves that the continuity between the present and the future is definitive and that history will always repeat itself. But I'd be skeptical. I've watched Samsung's management for the past 15 years. I watched them grow from a so-so, middle-running appliances and tv company into a full-fledged conglomerate that knows how to capitalize on synergies and learn from its mistakes.
Oh, no. I think time is very much important. It plays a large part in developing a company's brand reputation among customers. You see, many customers won't just buy from a brand that they've never heard of. I think that should've been obvious. Brand loyalty is also what has contributed to Apple's success, something you of all people should know.
Plus the additional years spent in a market allows the company to go through its own tried and true scenarios and to learn from past mistakes while coming up with successful formulas for the next business practices of tomorrow. Time is crucial in giving companies to establish themselves also as a safe place for investment. When you actually get a real, full-time job and start investing in stocks or hiring some hedge fund to do it for you'll know what I mean.
I could go on. But I think the rest is pretty self-evident.
Again, we can keep lying to ourselves that the continuity between the present and the future is definitive and that history will always repeat itself. But I'd be skeptical. I've watched Samsung's management for the past 15 years. I watched them grow from a so-so, middle-running appliances and tv company into a full-fledged conglomerate that knows how to capitalize on synergies and learn from its mistakes.
:blah blah blah: :grasping at straws: (from someone who don't understand marketing even a bit, I might say)
How long Samsung on the phone market? How many carriers around the world they have good relationship with? Compares that to Apple?
:blah blah blah: :grasping at straws: (from someone who don't understand marketing even a bit, I might say)
How long Samsung on the phone market? How many carriers around the world they have good relationship with? Compares that to Apple?
Common Apple fanboy tactic is to repeat the same line over and over. Let's see. I was off by, what? Less than a year? And carriers are just one factor among many that contribute to sales.
There's really no need to get so angry on an internet board of all things. And branding yourself an expert of all things business and marketing? Really? I'm going to bet you haven't even graduated from high school. Not with that level of argumentation. Srsly.
Thought I'd add. I've noticed people like you have grown, how should I put it? Angrier? Upset? Ever since Samsung established its foothold in the market? I wonder why. It must be because even fanboys are aware of the threat Samsung poses. It's starting to look like the 1990s all over again, but it's not Microsoft taking the lead.
And how does that change the fact that Apple still had years of lead?
I can tell you're just groping around for an argument, but you don't have one. You just bank off one slight inaccuracy which doesn't undermine anything I've said. In fact, what you've said so far just proves my earlier point: You repeat the same line again and again.
I'm finished here. It was fun toying around with you. Try finishing high school before trying to pose as a businessman. People might actually take you seriously in real life. I take your silence as an adoptive admission that I was more or less correct in guessing your age level. You're a child!
Are you deliberately lying? Look at the transcript on seeking alpha for Verizon. VZ clearly states that they sold 4.3 million iPhones and 1.4 million 4g smartphones. iPhone's make up 70 percent (4.3 / (4.3 + 1.4). On att apple had 80 percent. Where are these 36.5 million. Baloney and you are shameless repeating a lie.
You are forgetting that the US is only a small portion of world wide smartphone sales. There are other nations where Android performed more strongly. And the iPhone launch was staggered over different countries. Once announced, there was a predictable drop in iPhone sales for countries waiting for the release. Don?t forget the iPhone 4S was not available in China and some other places in Q4 2011.
With production backlog solved and 4S being available world wide, Q1 of 2012 will give a better indication of relative sales between manufacturers.
Will the post release rush die down allowing Samsung to take back the crown, or will its wide availability see iPhone crush Samsung. Time will tell.
you are forgetting that the us is only a small portion of world wide smartphone sales. There are other nations where android performed more strongly. And the iphone launch was staggered over different countries. Once announced, there was a predictable drop in iphone sales for countries waiting for the release. Don?t forget the iphone 4s was not available in china and some other places in q4 2011.
With production backlog solved and 4s being available world wide, q1 of 2012 will give a better indication of relative sales between manufacturers.
Will the post release rush die down allowing samsung to take back the crown, or will its wide availability see iphone crush samsung. Time will tell.
like most things samsung are even trying to copy apple's sales figures...cant we get the truth...ha
common apple fanboy tactic is to repeat the same line over and over. Let's see. I was off by, what? Less than a year? And carriers are just one factor among many that contribute to sales.
There's really no need to get so angry on an internet board of all things. And branding yourself an expert of all things business and marketing? Really? I'm going to bet you haven't even graduated from high school. Not with that level of argumentation. Srsly.
Thought i'd add. I've noticed people like you have grown, how should i put it? Angrier? Upset? Ever since samsung established its foothold in the market? I wonder why. It must be because even fanboys are aware of the threat samsung poses. It's starting to look like the 1990s all over again, but it's not microsoft taking the lead.
people want samsung to create there own products and marketing ideas...noone has it in for samsung...but noone likes a thief.
In the 3rd quarter of 2011, with one month left before reporting of the quarterly results, Samsung had announced that it had shipped(or sold?) 10 million smartphones. At the end of the quarter (just one month later), Samsung reported they shipped 27 million smartphones for the entire quarter. That is 17 million more phone in just one month (a rate of 51 million per quarter in a non-holiday period). That made me think there was something wrong with their reporting or may be they widened the definition of smartphones (possibly to make Apple look bad in the face of lawsuits).
Oh, and one last thing. We can keep on bleating the same, tired "sales vs shipments" line, but let's face the reality. New smartphone wholesalers and retailers aren't setting up shop everyday. Anyone who's worked in retail knows that store managers are likely to stock only what they at least believe they'll sell.
Tell that to RIM and the half-billion dollar (485 Million, to be more precise) charge they took on shipped inventory that couldn't be sold.
You're right, if the manufacturer can sell the product, then a sale is a sale, no matter who it's sold to. But sales that come with the real possibility of a forced buyback of significant numbers of units - or worse, product that doesn't get paid for until the unit(s) get sold to consumers - because they're hoping they'll be able to sell them though is something that does need consideration. In the end though, shipped units is irrelevant, it's only the ones that stay in consumer's hands that matter. Those are the units that generate actual cash-flow (and if you're inclined to follow them, actual market share numbers). If (just as a 'for example') a wireless carrier takes delivery of an extra million handsets in anticipation of a holiday buying spree, but they only actually sell 100K units, then the manufacturer may be faced with a buyback (or return of unsold product) in the next quarter. Do they then subtract that excess 900K units from the previous quarter, in the next quarter's 'shipped units' metric? No, that gets lost in the balance sheets as charges on inventory, but they still claim the previous 'shipped' number for PR purposes. It's creative bookkeeping at best to play it fast and loose with the "shipped units" metric, unless you're guaranteed that it's not going to boomerang on you (i.e your vendor agreements stipulate no buybacks, and inventory is paid for on delivery rather than sale).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack99
Hmmm, Given that Samsung entered the market as late as 2010, I'm amazed they've come this far.
Some sources seem to think Samsung started making car phones in 1986, handheld mobile (cell) phones in 1988, and as far as I can tell, the earliest Android-based samsung phone was the i7500 in 2009. They leaked information on it in January 2009 (which means planning and/or development had already started), announced it in April of 2009, and it was apparently on sale in August of 2009. Samsung has been in the cell phone business waaay longer than Apple. They may not have had a "smartphone" until 2009, but they've been in the market for a lot longer than that.
Now, what were you saying about:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack99
And how does that change the fact that Apple still had years of lead?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack99
Oh, no. I think time is very much important. It plays a large part in developing a company's brand reputation among customers. You see, many customers won't just buy from a brand that they've never heard of. I think that should've been obvious. Brand loyalty is also what has contributed to Apple's success, something you of all people should know.
I guess that 19 years of doing business in the handheld mobile phone business (before the iPhone) didn't get them any recognition or reputation (lol, or maybe it did )? Or the fact that Samsung Electronics has been a global brand doing business since 1969. Or that the parent Samsung group (that they get their name from) has been a brand and operating since 1938.
Are you deliberately lying? Look at the transcript on seeking alpha for Verizon. VZ clearly states that they sold 4.3 million iPhones and 1.4 million 4g smartphones. iPhone's make up 70 percent (4.3 / (4.3 + 1.4). On att apple had 80 percent. Where are these 36.5 million. Baloney and you are shameless repeating a lie.
First, a strictly personal observation; most of the people I know that have purchased iPhones in recent years, did so through the Apple stores - not carriers' stores. A lot of iPhone sales may actually be going through Apple directly, not the corporate carrier stores. Think on it, every time there's a new iPhone released, there's huge lineups - not so much at AT&T or Verizon sores, but at APPLE stores. The other thing to consider (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), but the carriers only report on sales though their corporate retail outlets (and direct online sales), but those mall kiosks and other 3rd-party resellers don't get counted in with the corporate sales (since they're not actually the companies sales).
EDIT: And one other thing - you mention Verizon & AT&T, those are just two U.S. carriers. That 37 million units sold is global. It's silly to call someone a liar because you can't be bothered to check facts or even to think something through logically.
In the 3rd quarter of 2011, with one month left before reporting of the quarterly results, Samsung had announced that it had shipped(or sold?) 10 million smartphones. At the end of the quarter (just one month later), Samsung reported they shipped 27 million smartphones for the entire quarter. That is 17 million more phone in just one month (a rate of 51 million per quarter in a non-holiday period). That made me think there was something wrong with their reporting or may be they widened the definition of smartphones (possibly to make Apple look bad in the face of lawsuits).
Can you cite any credible sources at least pointing in the direction of Samsung deliberately expanding the definition of a smartphone?
Seems like this war on the iPhone was in Steve's head...as great a man as he was he was still a man, and thus often wrong...he was also vindictive, vengeful, rude, demeaning, didactic...pretty much at times a bad person (Depending on the side you are on) But he was also a great man, wise, intelligent, focused...driven...don't let one side cloud you of the other...he was one of the most well rounded individuals in the tech world...understood through and through. He hid nothing from anyone, and that was his charm.
Point is he could be wrong.
And logic, observation, etc...shows that Android is not out to destroy the iPhone, nor are any OEMs...don't be so guided by advertisement from Verizon, Motorola, and Samsung...all they are doing is competing...you know, that thing people do in the free market. Companies are allowed to compete with the iPhone...
and yes, Samsung may have had Apple on a quarter or two...who gives a fuck.
Apple = Premium devices...one model, select carriers (formerly), set price ranges throughout its cycle until an upgrade comes along (not always as some overseas - non US - carriers alter prices)
Samsung = Premium through dirt cheap "OMG WTF IS THIS SHIT" devices...many models...all carriers...all price ranges...prices changing to lower prices throught a device cycle...
With those facts it should be a shock Apple is even 1 or 2 on the list considering every Android OEM has the same song and dance (and thankfully they seem to be willing to change tune into a more premium less devices a year strategy many Fandroids have been asking for for years).
Also Apple walks away with most of the profits in the entire category even besting Google's own Android when it comes to ad revenue.
1, 2 or 3...Apple is winning...it is very very utterly clear.
The fact that this upsets you that they aren't always king of a rather meaningless mountain proves you may have some issues to work out.
Chill the fuck out.
AbsoluteDesignz, you've made some valid points which you then totally undermine with your last two abusive paragraphs.
The fact is that fjose1929 is making some very valid points namely that Android and Windows in general and Samsung in particular are hyped up by outrageously exaggerated claims by analysts and others.
For example IDC, Gartner and Strategy Analytics repeatedly publish pure fantasy projections that Windows Mobile is going to overtake the iPhone in sales by 2015. They keep publishing such bizarre projections despite the fact Windows market share has persistently declined to a barely measurable less than 2% smartphone market share? Why do these analysts make such exaggerated claims. Possibly because Microsoft are spending many hundreds of millions bribing developers to produce apps for Windows mobile and these false projections help their salesmen persuade Apps developers.
Similarly Android is supported by the most amazing hype and obsfucation, possibly financed by Google's generosity. Whereas Apple provide accurate and verifiable unit sales figures for the iPhone and iPad, Android's and other OEMs figures are routinely exaggerated by quoting "shipments" which often include large numbers of units channels stuffing and sitting unsold on warehouse shelves. Samsung refuse to publish actual sales figures, which only make the figures for smartphone sales suspect and totally unreliable (Korean accounting standards leave a lot be desired).
Amazon are equally shy about publishing their figures both for sales and returns, for which there is a lot of anecdotal evidence have been quite significant.
Amazon use a forked version of Android (for smartphones not tablets?) in the Fire, so that Android Apps cannot be downloaded and Google have no means of monetising advertising (the entire aim of the "free" Android as far as Google is concerned). Even so Strategy Analytics incorporate their guess at Kindle Fire shipments to come up with fantasy estimates (wishful guesses more like) that Android has somehow managed to take 39% of the tablet market in 2011?
Anybody who believes Strategy Analytics numbers is naive beyond compare, and anybody who supports or does not criticise their incorrigible hyping is equally guilty of hyping.
As fjose1929 rightly says "A lie is a lie is a lie"
The fact of the matter is that it is not a zero sum game between Apple and Android. Apple are taking the cream, and making most of the profits, and Android is making do with the dregs. Samesung, the arch copyists, are doing well for the time being but they are crushing other Android OEMs like HTC, LG and Motorola, but not Apple, who reign supremely above them all.
Can you cite any credible sources at least pointing in the direction of Samsung deliberately expanding the definition of a smartphone?
He never said Samsung did change their definition of smartphone. He clearly stated that the atypical growth rate in a non-holiday quarter made him wonder if they could have changed the definition.
On top of that, there is no legal definition of a smartphone so Samsung can change the definition as they see fit just as you can categorize the iPhone as a "toy" and not a smartphone because it's not "open". You have that right.
Comments
Hmmm, I'm not so sure. Given that Samsung entered the market as late as 2010, I'm amazed they've come this far. Apple had since 2007. That's 3 more years for a total of 5 years. Also, notice how Samsung more than doubled its sales from 2010. Apple didn't get any such growth whatsoever. If anything, Apple just barely squeaked ahead. That's the equivalent of a pro sprinter with a midlife crisis just managing to beat a younger guy at a race who started training last week. With Samsung's phenomenal sales each year, Apple won't have an easy time staying on top.
Your argument is flawed. It has nothing to do with how long you're in the market. It's all about how many carriers you have and Samsung always release phones on more carriers than Apple at the time.
And who said Apple should be on top. I said it's amazing with Samsung portfolio Apple even managed to beat it this quarter.
And no, Samsung didn't enter the market "as late as 2010" either. You're a delusional fan boy.
Your argument is flawed. It has nothing to do with how long you're in the market. It's all about how many carriers you have and Samsung always release phones on more carriers than Apple at the time.
Oh, no. I think time is very much important. It plays a large part in developing a company's brand reputation among customers. You see, many customers won't just buy from a brand that they've never heard of. I think that should've been obvious. Brand loyalty is also what has contributed to Apple's success, something you of all people should know.
Plus the additional years spent in a market allows the company to go through its own tried and true scenarios and to learn from past mistakes while coming up with successful formulas for the next business practices of tomorrow. Time is crucial in giving companies to establish themselves also as a safe place for investment. When you actually get a real, full-time job and start investing in stocks or hiring some hedge fund to do it for you'll know what I mean.
I could go on. But I think the rest is pretty self-evident.
Again, we can keep lying to ourselves that the continuity between the present and the future is definitive and that history will always repeat itself. But I'd be skeptical. I've watched Samsung's management for the past 15 years. I watched them grow from a so-so, middle-running appliances and tv company into a full-fledged conglomerate that knows how to capitalize on synergies and learn from its mistakes.
Oh, no. I think time is very much important. It plays a large part in developing a company's brand reputation among customers. You see, many customers won't just buy from a brand that they've never heard of. I think that should've been obvious. Brand loyalty is also what has contributed to Apple's success, something you of all people should know.
Plus the additional years spent in a market allows the company to go through its own tried and true scenarios and to learn from past mistakes while coming up with successful formulas for the next business practices of tomorrow. Time is crucial in giving companies to establish themselves also as a safe place for investment. When you actually get a real, full-time job and start investing in stocks or hiring some hedge fund to do it for you'll know what I mean.
I could go on. But I think the rest is pretty self-evident.
Again, we can keep lying to ourselves that the continuity between the present and the future is definitive and that history will always repeat itself. But I'd be skeptical. I've watched Samsung's management for the past 15 years. I watched them grow from a so-so, middle-running appliances and tv company into a full-fledged conglomerate that knows how to capitalize on synergies and learn from its mistakes.
:blah blah blah: :grasping at straws: (from someone who don't understand marketing even a bit, I might say)
How long Samsung on the phone market? How many carriers around the world they have good relationship with? Compares that to Apple?
And no, Samsung didn't enter the market "as late as 2010" either. You're a delusional fan boy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_cal...e_kettle_black
:blah blah blah: :grasping at straws: (from someone who don't understand marketing even a bit, I might say)
How long Samsung on the phone market? How many carriers around the world they have good relationship with? Compares that to Apple?
Common Apple fanboy tactic is to repeat the same line over and over. Let's see. I was off by, what? Less than a year? And carriers are just one factor among many that contribute to sales.
There's really no need to get so angry on an internet board of all things. And branding yourself an expert of all things business and marketing? Really? I'm going to bet you haven't even graduated from high school. Not with that level of argumentation. Srsly.
Thought I'd add. I've noticed people like you have grown, how should I put it? Angrier? Upset? Ever since Samsung established its foothold in the market? I wonder why. It must be because even fanboys are aware of the threat Samsung poses. It's starting to look like the 1990s all over again, but it's not Microsoft taking the lead.
2010? You were saying?
Common Apple fanboy tactic is to repeat the same line over and over.
Now I know.
2010? You were saying?
And how does that change the fact that Apple still had years of lead?
I can tell you're just groping around for an argument, but you don't have one. You just bank off one slight inaccuracy which doesn't undermine anything I've said. In fact, what you've said so far just proves my earlier point: You repeat the same line again and again.
I'm finished here. It was fun toying around with you. Try finishing high school before trying to pose as a businessman. People might actually take you seriously in real life. I take your silence as an adoptive admission that I was more or less correct in guessing your age level. You're a child!
Are you deliberately lying? Look at the transcript on seeking alpha for Verizon. VZ clearly states that they sold 4.3 million iPhones and 1.4 million 4g smartphones. iPhone's make up 70 percent (4.3 / (4.3 + 1.4). On att apple had 80 percent. Where are these 36.5 million. Baloney and you are shameless repeating a lie.
You are forgetting that the US is only a small portion of world wide smartphone sales. There are other nations where Android performed more strongly. And the iPhone launch was staggered over different countries. Once announced, there was a predictable drop in iPhone sales for countries waiting for the release. Don?t forget the iPhone 4S was not available in China and some other places in Q4 2011.
With production backlog solved and 4S being available world wide, Q1 of 2012 will give a better indication of relative sales between manufacturers.
Will the post release rush die down allowing Samsung to take back the crown, or will its wide availability see iPhone crush Samsung. Time will tell.
you are forgetting that the us is only a small portion of world wide smartphone sales. There are other nations where android performed more strongly. And the iphone launch was staggered over different countries. Once announced, there was a predictable drop in iphone sales for countries waiting for the release. Don?t forget the iphone 4s was not available in china and some other places in q4 2011.
With production backlog solved and 4s being available world wide, q1 of 2012 will give a better indication of relative sales between manufacturers.
Will the post release rush die down allowing samsung to take back the crown, or will its wide availability see iphone crush samsung. Time will tell.
like most things samsung are even trying to copy apple's sales figures...cant we get the truth...ha
common apple fanboy tactic is to repeat the same line over and over. Let's see. I was off by, what? Less than a year? And carriers are just one factor among many that contribute to sales.
There's really no need to get so angry on an internet board of all things. And branding yourself an expert of all things business and marketing? Really? I'm going to bet you haven't even graduated from high school. Not with that level of argumentation. Srsly.
Thought i'd add. I've noticed people like you have grown, how should i put it? Angrier? Upset? Ever since samsung established its foothold in the market? I wonder why. It must be because even fanboys are aware of the threat samsung poses. It's starting to look like the 1990s all over again, but it's not microsoft taking the lead.
people want samsung to create there own products and marketing ideas...noone has it in for samsung...but noone likes a thief.
Oh, and one last thing. We can keep on bleating the same, tired "sales vs shipments" line, but let's face the reality. New smartphone wholesalers and retailers aren't setting up shop everyday. Anyone who's worked in retail knows that store managers are likely to stock only what they at least believe they'll sell.
Tell that to RIM and the half-billion dollar (485 Million, to be more precise) charge they took on shipped inventory that couldn't be sold.
You're right, if the manufacturer can sell the product, then a sale is a sale, no matter who it's sold to. But sales that come with the real possibility of a forced buyback of significant numbers of units - or worse, product that doesn't get paid for until the unit(s) get sold to consumers - because they're hoping they'll be able to sell them though is something that does need consideration. In the end though, shipped units is irrelevant, it's only the ones that stay in consumer's hands that matter. Those are the units that generate actual cash-flow (and if you're inclined to follow them, actual market share numbers). If (just as a 'for example') a wireless carrier takes delivery of an extra million handsets in anticipation of a holiday buying spree, but they only actually sell 100K units, then the manufacturer may be faced with a buyback (or return of unsold product) in the next quarter. Do they then subtract that excess 900K units from the previous quarter, in the next quarter's 'shipped units' metric? No, that gets lost in the balance sheets as charges on inventory, but they still claim the previous 'shipped' number for PR purposes. It's creative bookkeeping at best to play it fast and loose with the "shipped units" metric, unless you're guaranteed that it's not going to boomerang on you (i.e your vendor agreements stipulate no buybacks, and inventory is paid for on delivery rather than sale).
Hmmm, Given that Samsung entered the market as late as 2010, I'm amazed they've come this far.
Some sources seem to think Samsung started making car phones in 1986, handheld mobile (cell) phones in 1988, and as far as I can tell, the earliest Android-based samsung phone was the i7500 in 2009. They leaked information on it in January 2009 (which means planning and/or development had already started), announced it in April of 2009, and it was apparently on sale in August of 2009. Samsung has been in the cell phone business waaay longer than Apple. They may not have had a "smartphone" until 2009, but they've been in the market for a lot longer than that.
Now, what were you saying about:
And how does that change the fact that Apple still had years of lead?
Oh, no. I think time is very much important. It plays a large part in developing a company's brand reputation among customers. You see, many customers won't just buy from a brand that they've never heard of. I think that should've been obvious. Brand loyalty is also what has contributed to Apple's success, something you of all people should know.
I guess that 19 years of doing business in the handheld mobile phone business (before the iPhone) didn't get them any recognition or reputation (lol, or maybe it did
Are you deliberately lying? Look at the transcript on seeking alpha for Verizon. VZ clearly states that they sold 4.3 million iPhones and 1.4 million 4g smartphones. iPhone's make up 70 percent (4.3 / (4.3 + 1.4). On att apple had 80 percent. Where are these 36.5 million. Baloney and you are shameless repeating a lie.
First, a strictly personal observation; most of the people I know that have purchased iPhones in recent years, did so through the Apple stores - not carriers' stores. A lot of iPhone sales may actually be going through Apple directly, not the corporate carrier stores. Think on it, every time there's a new iPhone released, there's huge lineups - not so much at AT&T or Verizon sores, but at APPLE stores. The other thing to consider (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), but the carriers only report on sales though their corporate retail outlets (and direct online sales), but those mall kiosks and other 3rd-party resellers don't get counted in with the corporate sales (since they're not actually the companies sales).
EDIT: And one other thing - you mention Verizon & AT&T, those are just two U.S. carriers. That 37 million units sold is global. It's silly to call someone a liar because you can't be bothered to check facts or even to think something through logically.
Important word: "in the 4th quarter"
Data proves that Apple hasnt broken the official title yet.
Way to go AI with your skewed logic.
I don't get it. The 4th qtr of the calendar year is oct-dec. That corresponds to Apple's first qtr of its fiscal year.
It's a good point to ask where are all these phones. It appears the total US Android sales in Q4 were less than 5 million.
Know what? There's a whole world outside the USA with billions of people. And lots of them are buying Andoid phones.
It is astonishing how narrow-minded some people are.
In the 3rd quarter of 2011, with one month left before reporting of the quarterly results, Samsung had announced that it had shipped(or sold?) 10 million smartphones. At the end of the quarter (just one month later), Samsung reported they shipped 27 million smartphones for the entire quarter. That is 17 million more phone in just one month (a rate of 51 million per quarter in a non-holiday period). That made me think there was something wrong with their reporting or may be they widened the definition of smartphones (possibly to make Apple look bad in the face of lawsuits).
Can you cite any credible sources at least pointing in the direction of Samsung deliberately expanding the definition of a smartphone?
Seems like this war on the iPhone was in Steve's head...as great a man as he was he was still a man, and thus often wrong...he was also vindictive, vengeful, rude, demeaning, didactic...pretty much at times a bad person (Depending on the side you are on) But he was also a great man, wise, intelligent, focused...driven...don't let one side cloud you of the other...he was one of the most well rounded individuals in the tech world...understood through and through. He hid nothing from anyone, and that was his charm.
Point is he could be wrong.
And logic, observation, etc...shows that Android is not out to destroy the iPhone, nor are any OEMs...don't be so guided by advertisement from Verizon, Motorola, and Samsung...all they are doing is competing...you know, that thing people do in the free market. Companies are allowed to compete with the iPhone...
and yes, Samsung may have had Apple on a quarter or two...who gives a fuck.
Apple = Premium devices...one model, select carriers (formerly), set price ranges throughout its cycle until an upgrade comes along (not always as some overseas - non US - carriers alter prices)
Samsung = Premium through dirt cheap "OMG WTF IS THIS SHIT" devices...many models...all carriers...all price ranges...prices changing to lower prices throught a device cycle...
With those facts it should be a shock Apple is even 1 or 2 on the list considering every Android OEM has the same song and dance (and thankfully they seem to be willing to change tune into a more premium less devices a year strategy many Fandroids have been asking for for years).
Also Apple walks away with most of the profits in the entire category even besting Google's own Android when it comes to ad revenue.
1, 2 or 3...Apple is winning...it is very very utterly clear.
The fact that this upsets you that they aren't always king of a rather meaningless mountain proves you may have some issues to work out.
Chill the fuck out.
AbsoluteDesignz, you've made some valid points which you then totally undermine with your last two abusive paragraphs.
The fact is that fjose1929 is making some very valid points namely that Android and Windows in general and Samsung in particular are hyped up by outrageously exaggerated claims by analysts and others.
For example IDC, Gartner and Strategy Analytics repeatedly publish pure fantasy projections that Windows Mobile is going to overtake the iPhone in sales by 2015. They keep publishing such bizarre projections despite the fact Windows market share has persistently declined to a barely measurable less than 2% smartphone market share? Why do these analysts make such exaggerated claims. Possibly because Microsoft are spending many hundreds of millions bribing developers to produce apps for Windows mobile and these false projections help their salesmen persuade Apps developers.
Similarly Android is supported by the most amazing hype and obsfucation, possibly financed by Google's generosity. Whereas Apple provide accurate and verifiable unit sales figures for the iPhone and iPad, Android's and other OEMs figures are routinely exaggerated by quoting "shipments" which often include large numbers of units channels stuffing and sitting unsold on warehouse shelves. Samsung refuse to publish actual sales figures, which only make the figures for smartphone sales suspect and totally unreliable (Korean accounting standards leave a lot be desired).
Amazon are equally shy about publishing their figures both for sales and returns, for which there is a lot of anecdotal evidence have been quite significant.
Amazon use a forked version of Android (for smartphones not tablets?) in the Fire, so that Android Apps cannot be downloaded and Google have no means of monetising advertising (the entire aim of the "free" Android as far as Google is concerned). Even so Strategy Analytics incorporate their guess at Kindle Fire shipments to come up with fantasy estimates (wishful guesses more like) that Android has somehow managed to take 39% of the tablet market in 2011?
Anybody who believes Strategy Analytics numbers is naive beyond compare, and anybody who supports or does not criticise their incorrigible hyping is equally guilty of hyping.
As fjose1929 rightly says "A lie is a lie is a lie"
The fact of the matter is that it is not a zero sum game between Apple and Android. Apple are taking the cream, and making most of the profits, and Android is making do with the dregs. Samesung, the arch copyists, are doing well for the time being but they are crushing other Android OEMs like HTC, LG and Motorola, but not Apple, who reign supremely above them all.
Can you cite any credible sources at least pointing in the direction of Samsung deliberately expanding the definition of a smartphone?
He never said Samsung did change their definition of smartphone. He clearly stated that the atypical growth rate in a non-holiday quarter made him wonder if they could have changed the definition.
On top of that, there is no legal definition of a smartphone so Samsung can change the definition as they see fit just as you can categorize the iPhone as a "toy" and not a smartphone because it's not "open". You have that right.