Samsung announces 800K Galaxy Gear smartwatches shipped since launch [u]

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 121
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by peter236 View Post

     

     

    When Apple releases a smart watch, it will be using Samsung's screen and flash memory. Apple lags behind in screen and flash memory technology.


    Apple doesn't specialise in screen or memory technology, it buys from the suppliers who can produce to Apple's specs. Therefore, the absence of an Apple iWatch can be construed as demonstrating that Samsung unable to supply the needed technology at the requisite quality level. Samsung thus remains a failure.

     

    Cheers

  • Reply 102 of 121
    Then, there's this:

    This youngster; what is the world coming to?
  • Reply 103 of 121
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by minicapt View Post

     

    Apple doesn't specialise in screen or memory technology, it buys from the suppliers who can produce to Apple's specs. Therefore, the absence of an Apple iWatch can be construed as demonstrating that Samsung unable to supply the needed technology at the requisite quality level. Samsung thus remains a failure.

     

    Cheers




    Samsung owns the android market and leads over Apple in smart phone market share. Apple depends on samsung's screen and flash memory.

    Therefore, Samsung has lead over Apple in several areas. If Samsung can't supply Apple iWatch screen at the required quality level, then neither can Apple supply the quality screen for its own iWatch. In any case, Apple does not have any screen technology to supply any of its own product.

     

    It is strange how you twist around and say Samsung screen quality is not good enough, when Apple itself cannot supply screens to its own devices.

  • Reply 104 of 121
    rogifan wrote: »
    Why would they ship something they don't think they'll sell?
    Microsoft would be the leading experts here. You should ask them.
  • Reply 105 of 121
    esteban wrote: »
    rogifan wrote: »
    Why would they ship something they don't think they'll sell?
    Microsoft would be the leading experts here. You should ask them.

    They could be used as awards or prizes for holiday parties...

    1st place: A Samsung Gear Watch
    2nd place: 2 Samsung Gear Watches
    3rd place: 3 Samsung Gear Watches
    *
    *
    *

    Seriously, it could be part of a marketing package for the holidays -- Say, buy a Sammy Phone or tablet (or appliance) and get a Gear free. Likely, Sammy, gives resellers high discounts, marketing dollars and extended terms (no payment until Jan 2014).
  • Reply 106 of 121
    peter236 wrote: »

    Samsung owns the android market and leads over Apple in smart phone market share. Apple depends on samsung's screen and flash memory.
    Therefore, Samsung has lead over Apple in several areas. If Samsung can't supply Apple iWatch screen at the required quality level, then neither can Apple supply the quality screen for its own iWatch. In any case, Apple does not have any screen technology to supply any of its own product.

    It is strange how you twist around and say Samsung screen quality is not good enough, when Apple itself cannot supply screens to its own devices.

    Peter236, everyone knows Samsung develops screen and flash memory technologies. In an attempt to deflect the negative attention spotlighted on Samsung, you want to present the technologies as Samsung being a leader. Fine. Samsung is a leader of screen and flash memory technologies. With that written, Samsung being the leader that you want to praise and promote so much does not take away from the pure fact that Samsung produced a rotten product using it's own leading screen and flash memory technologies. Instead of ignoring the bad press of 50,000 smart watches sold, Samsung announces it shipped 800,000 smart watches. This ship number does not negate the sold number.

    If Apple does produce a smart watch using screen and flash memory technologies from Samsung, LG, Sharp, Broadcom, whomever, Apple's smart watch will be above and beyond anything that Samsung could ever produce unless Samsung resorted to copying and stealing Apple's hardware configuration and software designs.
  • Reply 107 of 121
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,249member
    evilution wrote: »
    Apple sell direct and through their own stores mainly

    IIRC Tim Cook very recently complained that only 20% of iPhone sales (and I think 25% of overall sales) come thru Apple themselves. 3rd party resellers are the main outlet for Apple products.

    EDIT: Here's a completely off-topic but feel-good article (If Dick can post Miley. . . ;) about how a simple $5000 and an Apple II from Steve Jobs over 30 years ago eventually helped more than 3.5 million people. Sometimes the smallest things can make big differences.
    http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/a-gift-from-steve-jobs-returns-home/?_r=1&
  • Reply 108 of 121
    Instead of ignoring the bad press of 50,000 smart watches sold, Samsung announces it shipped 800,000 smart watches. This ship number does not negate the sold number.

    Erm, the 50k was for SK, the 'correction' was the global figure. So no Sold/Shipped issue here.
    gatorguy wrote: »
    IIRC Tim Cook very recently complained that only 20% of iPhone sales (and I think 25% of overall sales) come thru Apple themselves. 3rd party resellers are the main outlet for Apple products.

    True, and makes sense as well. Not that many people simply pluck down € 700-900 over here for a new phone. They mainly get sold through a lone with ridiculous interest rates cell phone contracts.
  • Reply 109 of 121
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    documentsQuote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Exactly. While those were originally sold and counted as such you'll note the required disclosures when poor retailer sales resulted in a special allowance for them to return those unsold products for manufacturer write-off. I don't recall any Samsung announcements to that effect (nor Apple either for that matter). You can bet that if it happened it would'a been reported. Not much makes it past the tech press, at least not all of them.

    un-uh.

     

    routine contracts between OEM's and the retail chains/telcos all include contingencies for returns (or large wholesale price discounts) of unsold products to the OEM's, as well as the timing of payments. it's a negotiation, and it's the chains/telcos that usually have the leverage here (unless it's a really popular product, like an iPad), and they are not going to take the majority of risk of getting stuck with unsold units of a flop product.

     

    and i would bet the exact opposite - virtually none of this stuff ever gets reported. these contracts are confidential, and the only time we see real numbers from other than Apple is via lawsuit discovery filings in court - which is exactly what happened with Samsung vs. Apple. remember SS's very first Galaxy 7 Tab at the end of 2010? the big hype about 2 million (shipped, we learned after a few months)? where the SS person said "sales are smooth" (first reported as "slow")? but actually over its lifetime, as Wikipedia documents:

     

    A week after its release, Samsung announced that they had sold 600,000 units.[49] On the 4 December, it was reported that the 1 million mark was reached, two months after launch.[50] However, an executive at Lenovo claimed that Samsung had only sold 20,000 out of the 1 million Galaxy Tabs that were shipped.[51] In January 2011 Samsung announced they had shipped 2 million units to stores. In August 2012, actual sales figures were released in the patent infringement court case against Apple showing that a total of 1.4M Galaxy Tabs were sold from launch to Q2 2012.

     

    plainly, SS flat out lied with their initial sales reports. the courts docs further break sales figures down by quarters:

     

    http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Technology/Pix/pictures/2012/8/10/1344581144089/samsungtabs.png?guni=Article:in body link

     

    only 1,050,000 of those tablets were the Galaxy 7 model. only 262K sold by the end of 2010, not 1M as SS claimed.

     

    anyone who ever believes them is just crazy. SS constantly lies. and you can bet the retailers did not eat the losses on those almost 1 million shipped-but-unsold tablets either. any that the retailers held on to (for their discount bins likely) would be included in the sales total. the rest were returned to SS.

     

    more recently, MS took that big almost $1B write-off for its V.1 Surface RT Tab flop. but in fact no one - analyst nor tech web site - has reported the actual shipped vs. sales vs. returns figures (however defined) for it. and MS ain't going to say - ever.

     

    in truth, these fiascos almost never get reported.

     

    [edit: updated with exact more damning numbers after tacking down that chart]

  • Reply 110 of 121
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,249member
    alfiejr wrote: »
    un-uh. etc.

    You're mixing court filings that stated US sales only with Samsung international sales announcements. As far as I know the certified documents given to the court were only a subset (US specific) of Samsung's overall worldwide sales. Tugging on those as proof Samsung lied about their sales isn't proof at all.

    By the same token it isn't evidence they told the entire truth either. If I was a betting man my money would be on Samsung doing a bit of fudging, maybe even a lot, but the court docs you're relying on don't prove that.
  • Reply 111 of 121
    kibitzerkibitzer Posts: 1,114member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Kibitzer View Post



    I'm issuing a bounty on the new Galaxy Gear smartwatch. If you're the first person to post on this thread your own photo of someone actually wearing one of these gizmos in public - identifying the date, time, location and circumstances - I'll arrange to send you a free box of these:



    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/twinkies-make-official-nationwide-return-shelves/t/story?id=19664290&ref=https://www.google.com/



    This offer will expire at noon Central Time on November 20, 2013.

    [SIGH] No takers for Twinkies! This offer expired without anyone posting a photo of anyone actually wearing one of these smartwatches on the street. Gee, you'd think that if there were upwards of a million of them floating around among end users, that AT LEAST ONE OF THEM would actually be spotted in real life!

  • Reply 112 of 121
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post





    Peter236, everyone knows Samsung develops screen and flash memory technologies. In an attempt to deflect the negative attention spotlighted on Samsung, you want to present the technologies as Samsung being a leader. Fine. Samsung is a leader of screen and flash memory technologies. With that written, Samsung being the leader that you want to praise and promote so much does not take away from the pure fact that Samsung produced a rotten product using it's own leading screen and flash memory technologies. Instead of ignoring the bad press of 50,000 smart watches sold, Samsung announces it shipped 800,000 smart watches. This ship number does not negate the sold number.



    If Apple does produce a smart watch using screen and flash memory technologies from Samsung, LG, Sharp, Broadcom, whomever, Apple's smart watch will be above and beyond anything that Samsung could ever produce unless Samsung resorted to copying and stealing Apple's hardware configuration and software designs.

     

    Apple has not even released any smart watch., while samsung has already done so. If Apple uses screens and flash memory from any other vendor including samsung, then there is no way Apple is leading at all, as it is just depending on others' technology.

     

    It is interesting that you claim Apple's smart watch will be superior when you have not even seen it yet.

     

    As for Samsung's 50,000 smart watch number, for sure it is way more than Apple's as Apple has not even released any smart watch at all. And you are claiming Apple is leading when is is late to the game.

  • Reply 113 of 121
    Originally Posted by peter236 View Post

    It is interesting that you claim Apple's smart watch will be superior when you have not even seen it yet.


     

    Why, when that has been the case for every Apple product in a new category save for four?

  • Reply 114 of 121
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    Why, when that has been the case for every Apple product in a new category save for four?


     

    That was not true at all when Apple is now losing market share in all those categories.

  • Reply 115 of 121
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Kibitzer View Post

     

    [SIGH] No takers for Twinkies! This offer expired without anyone posting a photo of anyone actually wearing one of these smartwatches on the street. Gee, you'd think that if there were upwards of a million of them floating around among end users, that AT LEAST ONE OF THEM would actually be spotted in real life!


     

    Outside of the cheating student circles who could use one for their exams, I don't see anyone wanting one of these, from ANY manufacture. There's being nerdy and then there's just being a nerd.

    Man these things are ugly.

  • Reply 116 of 121
    Originally Posted by peter236 View Post

    That was not true at all when Apple is now losing market share in all those categories.


     

    How could they have been losing marketshare in a category they weren’t even in?

  • Reply 117 of 121
    kibitzerkibitzer Posts: 1,114member
    relic wrote: »
    Outside of the cheating student circles who could use one for their exams, I don't see anyone wanting one of these, from ANY manufacture. There's being nerdy and then there's just being a nerd.
    <img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="35225" data-type="61" src="http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/35225/width/500/height/1000/flags/LL" style="; width: 500px; height: 281px">

    Man these things are ugly.
    A classic marketing ploy to kick up consumer interest is product placement in movies and top-rated TV shows. Apple gets a lot of mileage on The Good Wife, for example. The Galaxy Gear smartwatch would be perfect for Sheldon on The Big Bang Theory.
  • Reply 118 of 121

    Poor Sammy. They should have waited. It's not easy for them to make a product that people want to buy when they have no point of reference on which to base the product.

     

    Don't release another one at CES. Hold off. Apple might release one next year. Wait and see what you can do with that. Save your resources. The money you save can be added to the  $10bn marketing budget you need to keep up sales of the already overpriced, cheap-feeling plastic devices you currently make.

  • Reply 119 of 121
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

     

    What I take issue with is a quote within the same article. It says: 

    Samsung’s announcement “is probably just to show that the shipments have reached close to 1 million,” Doh Hyun-woo, an analyst with Mirae Asset Securities said. “Still, the figure only shows us that people are rarely buying this product given that the Galaxy Note [3] smartphones are expected to average 10 million units in sales per month.”

    10 million a month? So what he's saying is Samsung (expects to) sell almost as many Galaxy Note 3s per quarter as Apple sells iPhones per quarter? Seriously??!


     

    I suppose it's possible that Samsung will SHIP 10 million Note 3s in a month. Also note the disclaimer style "are expected to average..."  which doesn't say who expects that, or that there's any real reason to believe that. 

     

    Apple sold 33 million iPhones last quarter, and that with the 5s/5c launching only at the tail end of it. 

     

    We'll see how things play out after a full quarter has run post product release. I expect we'll see more like 50 million iPhones SOLD in the holiday quarter, and perhaps 15 ~ 20 million Note 3s actually SHIPPED.

     

    I think a tens of millions difference, in sold vs shipped no less, is a significant number, don't you?

  • Reply 120 of 121
    I think a tens of millions difference, in sold vs shipped no less, is a significant number, don't you?

    The number is, but Samsung gets paid by retailers for stuffing in their stores. So through the eyes of Samsung, they made a sale. It just isn't in the hands of an end customer.
Sign In or Register to comment.