Samsung still No. 1 smartphone vendor, but Note 7 knocked marketshare back to 2014

Posted:
in General Discussion edited October 2016
Leaning on an expansive lineup of affordable Android handsets, Samsung retained its spot as the world's top smartphone vendor for the third quarter of 2016, according to research firm IDC. However, premium phone makers -- Apple and Samsung included -- are being squeezed from the bottom, as manufacturers of cheaper Android alternatives gained ground.




According to fresh statistics from IDC's Worldwide Quarterly Mobile Phone Tracker, Samsung shipped 72.5 million smartphones during the three-month period ending in September, good for 20 percent of the global market. The figure is down 13.5 percent from 83.8 million units shipped in the year ago quarter.

The last time Samsung took only 20 percent of the global market was in the fourth quarter of 2014, back when Apple trailed the Korean tech giant by only 0.16 percent.

"Samsung's market dominance in the third quarter was unchallenged in the short term even with this high-profile Galaxy Note 7 recall, but the longer term impact on the Samsung brand remains to be seen. If the first recall was a stumble for Samsung, the second recall of replacement devices face-planted the Note series," said Melissa Chau, associate research director, Mobile Devices at IDC.

Beyond global marketshare, the Note 7 discontinuation obliterated Samsung's quarterly earnings, with the company's mobile unit suffering a 96 percent year-over-year decline in operating profits.

Apple iPhone sales also declined by 5.3 percent to 45.5 million units, or 12.5 percent of the market over the same period. As noted in an earnings call on Tuesday, the performance helped eke out a Wall Street beat on revenues of $46.9 billon.

Looking ahead to the lucrative holiday quarter, Apple is set to capitalize on Samsung's mistake and momentum from its own iPhone 7 series launch. Supply for the latest iPhones is still constrained, with iPhone 7 Plus seeing particularly high demand thanks to differentiating technology like a dual-camera array. Apple CEO Tim Cook is confident that 4.7-inch iPhone 7 supply will equalize by the end of the year, but is less certain about iPhone 7 Plus stock.

Huawei came in third with a 9.3 percent marketshare on 33.6 million units shipped, up 23 percent from the same time last year.

Chinese upstarts Oppo and Vivo enjoyed the biggest year-over-year gains with shipment metrics jumping 121.6 percent and 102.5 percent, respectively. In comparison to Apple and Samsung, however, the two Chinese firms run relatively low production operations. Oppo shipped 25.3 million units in quarter three for a 7 percent share of the market, while Vivo managed 21.2 million units for a 5.8 percent stake.

Combined smartphone shipments hit 362.9 million units to grow one percent from the same time last year.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 27
    Ali1Ali1 Posts: 3unconfirmed, member
    Apple will be on top with high in numbers if only calculated in premium smartphone segment
    watto_cobranetmage
  • Reply 2 of 27
    They may be apt in this case, but I don't think "face-planted" are exactly PR words to use in an official statement by an 'associate research director'.

    IDC loses more credibility in my book.
    watto_cobraSpamSandwichbrakken
  • Reply 3 of 27
    I love this "no. 1" moniker the press throwing around like it means something. Tesla can never be no.1 for car. Rolex can never be no.1 for watch. And Levi can never be no.1 for jeans sold all over the world.
    So how is this moniker relevant again?
    rob53SpamSandwichlkruppjony0
  • Reply 4 of 27
    matrix077 said:
    I love this "no. 1" moniker the press throwing around like it means something. Tesla can never be no.1 for car. Rolex can never be no.1 for watch. And Levi can never be no.1 for jeans sold all over the world.
    So how is this moniker relevant again?
    They don't get an award for it so why are you so bothered? It's relevant info, e.g. for retailers, to know who sells the most units so they can plan advertising or for competitors to monitor who is growing so they can identify why. And btw none of you analogies to Tesla or Rolex are comparable. Maybe Levi's but I doubt any tech company would want to be compared to such a stodgy old brand
  • Reply 5 of 27
    matrix077 said:
    I love this "no. 1" moniker the press throwing around like it means something. Tesla can never be no.1 for car. Rolex can never be no.1 for watch. And Levi can never be no.1 for jeans sold all over the world.
    So how is this moniker relevant again?
    And btw none of you analogies to Tesla or Rolex are comparable.
    Do elaborate. 

    I'm glad you're agreeing with me that it's never relevant though. 
    edited October 2016
  • Reply 6 of 27
    With the Note 7 officially shipping a zero quantity and the S7 coming to end of life this quarter and Apple ramping up to sell a lot of iPhones this quarter, unless the Chinese leapfrog Apple, we could see Apple in the #1 position in the next report. Unless... IDC discovers Samsung shipped more low-end phones in an attempt to Increase ship numbers to remain in the #1 position. Or... unless...
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 27
    FatmanFatman Posts: 300member
    IDC should include profit share in this chart. Selling millions of units at a loss is not sustainable nor a good business model, especially in a mature market. The Chinese are doing what they do best -- flooding the market with cheap knockoffs (manufacturing plans stolen right from the real innovators). Poor countries like India & China will snatch these products up, the consumers are driven solely by price, not brand.
  • Reply 8 of 27
    Well technically I'm the number one smart phone vendor. I sold billions of "smart phones" this quarter. I can do this because the definition of smart phone seems to be any device marketed as a smart phone, and not actually devices which have a minimum cost, performance or durability standard.
    rob53rezwitswatto_cobrabrakkenpscooter63
  • Reply 9 of 27
    jason98jason98 Posts: 763member
    Well technically I'm the number one smart phone vendor. I sold billions of "smart phones" this quarter. I can do this because the definition of smart phone seems to be any device marketed as a smart phone, and not actually devices which have a minimum cost, performance or durability standard.
    I think it is fair to compare any smartphones premium or cheap as they all compete with each other to occupy space in your pocket.
    Would be even more fair to include feature phones as well (not sure if they are even sold nowadays).
    With that said, it is pretty obvious Apple is poised to be number 1 again in the next quarter.
    tylerdwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 27
    Citing ranking based on numbers of units sold is irrelevant. Cite rankings based on revenue or profits, and you have my attention. Why would I care if a company is running as an industry loss leader?
    SpamSandwichwatto_cobraanton zuykovpscooter63
  • Reply 11 of 27
    longpath said:
    Citing ranking based on numbers of units sold is irrelevant. Cite rankings based on revenue or profits, and you have my attention. Why would I care if a company is running as an industry loss leader?
    Agreed. Also relevant is that Apple will make approximately 100% of the industry profits. Truly amazing!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 27
    longpath said:
    Citing ranking based on numbers of units sold is irrelevant. Cite rankings based on revenue or profits, and you have my attention. Why would I care if a company is running as an industry loss leader?
    That would require access to real information, which is not allowed in this discussion.
    watto_cobrabrakkenanton zuykov
  • Reply 13 of 27
    netmagenetmage Posts: 270member
    Given that LG would make more money if they didn't sell phones, combined with Note 7 fallout, Apple is probably poised to take over 100% of the profit next quarter. 
    watto_cobracali
  • Reply 14 of 27
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,705member
    Cmon AI, you need a click bait headline. How about: Apple fails to retake smartphone lead after Note incident. 
    SpamSandwichmatrix077anton zuykovcali
  • Reply 15 of 27
    I think the whole report stands on shake grounds as biggest share with 45-50% is taken by others.
    To my mind all other numbers have cero relevance, especially as Apple is the only one really telling how many phones they have sold.
  • Reply 16 of 27
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,309member
    As others have said, there is smart then there is smart.  Plus, let's see this table ordered by profitability please.
  • Reply 17 of 27
    matrix077 said:
    matrix077 said:
    I love this "no. 1" moniker the press throwing around like it means something. Tesla can never be no.1 for car. Rolex can never be no.1 for watch. And Levi can never be no.1 for jeans sold all over the world.
    So how is this moniker relevant again?
    And btw none of you analogies to Tesla or Rolex are comparable.
    Do elaborate. 

    I'm glad you're agreeing with me that it's never relevant though. 
    Tesla has completely different goals to Apple - they want to change the industry while Apple wants to make a profit. Tesla just wants people to buy electric cars, no matter who makes them. And Apple is no lux brand like Rolex - it's phones are much the same as those sold by Samsung, you know, the #1 phone maker
  • Reply 18 of 27
    jungmark said:
    Cmon AI, you need a click bait headline. How about: Apple fails to retake smartphone lead after Note incident. 
    Prepare for the fusillade of negative stories after today's "underwhelming" event. You know it's coming.
    edited October 2016
  • Reply 19 of 27
    matrix077 said:
    matrix077 said:
    I love this "no. 1" moniker the press throwing around like it means something. Tesla can never be no.1 for car. Rolex can never be no.1 for watch. And Levi can never be no.1 for jeans sold all over the world.
    So how is this moniker relevant again?
    And btw none of you analogies to Tesla or Rolex are comparable.
    Do elaborate. 

    I'm glad you're agreeing with me that it's never relevant though. 
    Tesla has completely different goals to Apple - they want to change the industry while Apple wants to make a profit. Tesla just wants people to buy electric cars, no matter who makes them. And Apple is no lux brand like Rolex - it's phones are much the same as those sold by Samsung, you know, the #1 phone maker
    Now you're just senselessly rambling. Apple competes in a certain segment of market, just like Tesla. Also, Samsung sold phones all over market segments while Apple latest phone products just sold on a top few.
    It seems you have emotional distraught because of Apple for some unknown reasons.
    edited October 2016 bestkeptsecretcali
  • Reply 20 of 27
    IDC = "I Don't Care" Research  :|
    cali
Sign In or Register to comment.