Apple, Samsung continue to pace global smartphone market as Xiaomi jumps into top 5
South Korean electronics giant Samsung and California-based Apple remained the two largest sellers of smartphones around the world in the second quarter, data released this week shows, while Chinese brands like Huawei and Xiaomi continue to make inroads.
Samsung took 26.8 percent of the market in the second quarter of this year, according to market research firm TrendForce. Apple dipped slightly from 20.5 percent in the first quarter to 16.4 percent in the second, though that still represents an impressive showing for the company in the traditionally slow period.
Apple is widely expected to announce sales of 50 million or more iPhones in the second quarter during its earnings call later Tuesday, which would be yet another new quarterly sales record.
Apple's share remains more than double that of its closest competitor --?Chinese firm Huawei, which snagged 7.6 percent --?even as Chinese handset makers ride a surge in popularity. Apple copycat Xiaomi leapfrogged South Korea's LG to take fourth place with 5.9 percent of the market, thanks in part to the underwhelming performance of LG's latest G4 flagship.
Overall, growth in the worldwide smartphone market continues to slow, inching upward just 1.9 percent in the second quarter. That relatively weak figure can be partially credited to an increasingly saturated market and partially to Apple and Samsung's refresh cycles, which push many consumers to wait until the third calendar quarter of each year to purchase new devices.
Samsung took 26.8 percent of the market in the second quarter of this year, according to market research firm TrendForce. Apple dipped slightly from 20.5 percent in the first quarter to 16.4 percent in the second, though that still represents an impressive showing for the company in the traditionally slow period.
Apple is widely expected to announce sales of 50 million or more iPhones in the second quarter during its earnings call later Tuesday, which would be yet another new quarterly sales record.
Apple's share remains more than double that of its closest competitor --?Chinese firm Huawei, which snagged 7.6 percent --?even as Chinese handset makers ride a surge in popularity. Apple copycat Xiaomi leapfrogged South Korea's LG to take fourth place with 5.9 percent of the market, thanks in part to the underwhelming performance of LG's latest G4 flagship.
Overall, growth in the worldwide smartphone market continues to slow, inching upward just 1.9 percent in the second quarter. That relatively weak figure can be partially credited to an increasingly saturated market and partially to Apple and Samsung's refresh cycles, which push many consumers to wait until the third calendar quarter of each year to purchase new devices.
Comments
It makes this a very difficult game to play.
I wouldn't call that a "slight" dip, as it's about 20%. But I question the accuracy of it anyway. Most of those numbers can't be verified. Samsung doesn't release quarterly sales, or shipment numbers for smartphones and tablets, so those are just guesses. Chinese companies numbers can't be trusted,even if they do release them.
It makes this a very difficult game to play.
Which is why Apple is smart to largely ignore the numbers game. Because it's a game with rules outside their control.
It's a complicated question. But everything's tied together. There is a psychological factor at work. If people you know are using a particular phone, or OS, there's a greater chance that you will use that next time. Users tend to be evangelists of the platorm, and influence others. The more people who you see using a platform, the more likely you are to buy into it.
When I say "you", or course, I'm using the general meaning of the word.
But a platform that's rising tends to sustain that rise, while a platform that's falling tends to sustain that fall. Something major needs to occur to change that. So if Apple's marketshare is rising, it will tend to continue that rise. People, in general, look at something that's successful, and want to ride it out. When something looks to be dying, they abandon it.
So these numbers are important, as they reinforce people's beliefs as to their correct choice.
And yes, I constantly tell people that Apple doesn't compete in the low end, and that's why their numbers are all the more impressive.
I wouldn't call that a "slight" dip, as it's about 20%. But I question the accuracy of it anyway. Most of those numbers can't be verified. Samsung doesn't release quarterly sales, or shipment numbers for smartphones and tablets, so those are just guesses. Chinese companies numbers can't be trusted,even if they do release them.
It makes this a very difficult game to play.
We should all know by now that market share is meaningless in terms of Apple products. That other manufacturers sell more gadgets while Apple takes in most of the profit is the important part to focus on. Market share has not cause developers to flee the platform. On the contrary developers know they can actually make money making iOS and now Watch OS apps.
Ah, but Apple doesn't ignore the numbers game. They constantly talk about sales numbers and marketshare. Jobs used to say that it didn't matter, but he used to talk it up too. You can't ignore it.
Apple does what it does on a time plan that is longer than that of many other companies. But still, they can't ignore what's out there, and how well it's doing.
When Cook was asked about how Apple had thought about large screen phones, and when, he said that they had looked at them for five years. This was right after the 6 came out, during the "D" conference. He said that processors and batteries weren't good enough to to run large, huge res screens, for years.
But it does make me wonder ho much they were influenced by Samsung's sales numbers of their newer, bigger, phones. Would Apple have just come out with one 4.5-5" model if Samsung hadn't had a larger one already? Maybe someday we'll find out.
But I like to point out that Apple has increased the screen quality every two years.
The first phone, and the 3GS had the 3.5" 480:320 screen.
The 4-4S had the 3.5" 960:640 screen.
The 5-5S had the 4" 1100 something by 640 screen.
We can see a progression every two years. It just made sense that Apple would have increased the Rez, screen size, or both, for the 6. What wasn't expected was that they would have two larger phones. That could easily have been influenced by what was already out there.
It's never meaningless, just ask Palm, Microsoft, Nokia, and Blackberry. If it was, they'd all stil be making their phones happily. Blackberry is still around, but are essentially destroyed.
Profits are very important, but aren't everything. Apple almost went under while their individual sales were still very profitable. When their worldwide marketshare fell to just 1.1%, and their USA marketshare fell to 2.8%, software developers were abandoning the platform. Adobe was forced to port to Windows, and that almost put the nail in the coffin.
The iMac staunched that, and iPod sales revived the company, leading to increased Mac sales. Marketshare began to rise again, and developers began to come back.
There's no way to know what percentage of marketshare is critical, but there is a point where developers don't want to bother. The costs exceed the sales.
The correct headline should be "'Others' continue to pace global smartphone market as Xiaomi jumps into top 6 or 7..... or something".
So, according to TrendForce, Apple is the ONLY top-five company to have a downward trend in 2Q? Hmmm.... Apple loses market share... WHILE... gaining more profits! Damn, Apple is good at what is does!!!!!
You don't know what relevant is then. It's always relevant. Just because a company is riding hifpgh, doesn't mean that they always will, and that's where marketshare is meaningful. Are you saying that if Apple's marketshare went down, and continued to do so, that is was just as good if it went up and continued to do so? I'd like a simple answer to that. It's a simple yes or no.
Profits don't exist by themselves. They exist because a company is sussessful in selling a desirable product. I hope we all understand that. And I do understand that low cost phones aren't directly comparable with Apple's products. I made that point early on, and I've made that point in numerous threads over a long time. I'm sure you've read those posts, so you should know what I think about that.
But, no matter what you think, even lower priced phones have some impact. As long as they run the majority of software that most people want, and run it well enough, then there is some competition. Apple knows that, even if you do not. Why do you think they keep phones in the line at ever lower prices, for several years? It's to compete more directly against less expensive models.
It's said that people will spend somewhat more for an Apple product. So an Apple $399 phone, which is free with a subsidized contract, competes against phones priced lower, in the case of off contract pricing, and very much cheaper phones when free with a contract. You think Apple doesn't know what's happening?
I don't know what's got you so emotional today. This is just a discussion about phone pricing and marketshare, not politics or religion. Lighten up, ok?
No, they don't worry about $8,000 cars, but as they do sell cars for $30,000, they worry about cars that sell for $25,000, possibly even for $20,000.
I don't think Apple cares about $100 phones either. But I do think they care about $300 phones, and likely, in that Indian market you mention, $250 phones. Last year, Apple made moves to have their lower priced phones be financed in a way that would allow them to better compete with cheaper phones, and has seen sales rise significantly as a result.
You don't need to be so factious.
No, they don't worry about $8,000 cars, but as they do sell cars for $30,000, they worry about cars that sell for $25,000, possibly even for $20,000.
Only insofar as they price their own cars deliberately 5,000-10,000$ above that market, if for no other reason than not to compete with it on price.
The way this works is counter-intuitive, but it works: If you're in the same price segment as others, you will be compared to them, and they'll trounce you with feature lists and specs, even if you build the better product. A LG whatever is clearly a better product than the Apple iPhone whatever, since it comes with card slots and waterproofing (in form of rubber flaps that will rip off or fail within four weeks).
If you price yourself out of their range, you're out of their range, and won't be judged as easily by the same criteria. No expansion slot? Pfff. Whatever for?
And suddenly, you have no competition, or any competition that wants to make it will have to create the same sense of value that Samsung is so desperately trying for — and failing, since they've positioned themselves for years as "the same, but cheaper", which others are now becoming equally good at.
For both of you guys:
Cook has stated, in answer to the phone pricing question, that Apple has nothing against cheaper phones, and if they figure out how to make one that gives the Apple experience in a cheaper phone, they will make one. I agree.
We should all know by now that market share is meaningless in terms of Apple products. That other manufacturers sell more gadgets while Apple takes in most of the profit is the important part to focus on. Market share has not cause developers to flee the platform. On the contrary developers know they can actually make money making iOS and now Watch OS apps.
As an app developer, I decided to make apps for both iOS and Android, and this decision is not driven by potential profits. There is a huge misunderstanding about iOS app profits: more than 90% of the iOS apps are loss making (for the developer, not for Apple).
I can only make a living because 3rd parties pay me to develop apps for them. These 3rd parties, the European Commission is among my customers, all ask for iOS and Android versions, an their apps are by no exception free apps, mainly in the marketing segment. The moment the market share of Apple would drop too low in a certain region, these 3rd parties might ask only for an Android version.
I wouldn't call that a "slight" dip, as it's about 20%. But I question the accuracy of it anyway. Most of those numbers can't be verified.
Of course these numbers cannot be verified, but on the other hand one can assume that the error that TrendForce is making is systematically in the same direction. If their figures for Apple in Q2 are underestimated, it is very likely that their figures for Apple Q1 were also underestimated. So it is quite likely that the trend for Apple was effectively a serious dip.