He said "The fact that Android fans visit this site just as much as Apple fans supports that notion."
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Overtakes LG to Become No. 2 Mobile Phone Maker in U.S.
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
He said "The fact that Android fans visit this site just as much as Apple fans supports that notion."
Samsung has like millions of different models, Galaxy being only of them. Summed, they have a large share. Apple has only one current model and one last generation model, still they manage to keep a very big chunk of US market and world market too. LG too has like millions of models but was unfortunate to bet on Windows mobile and ended up losing its share (though not much overall one). HTC really has to blame only itself: its quality is simply not good enough, its additions to Android make its phone clunkier. One has to wonder how Apple actually managed to become No 2 in the market full of featurephones with just ONE expensive smartphone model. Is it incredible luck, RDF, Jobs' genius or what, I don't know.
I honestly can't say I've ever seen a LG smartphone around in Europe. A few years back you could spot some LG Cookies, don't know whether you can call them smartphones or not, but everyone thought they were crap. Now it's been ages since I've seen one. Also dumbphones from LG aren't seen a lot.
Actually revenues between Apple and Sammy are about the same with Apple, perhaps, a bit higher. Both derive the bulk of profits from their cell phones though Apple makes Samsung profits look insignificant. The difference comes from selling a product people want VS selling a product you have to pay billions to sales people push.
HTC seemed to shoot themselves in the foot. The DNA is amazing except for the not so great battery life and non expandable memory. If it had at least expandable memory I would of gotten it instead of the Note 2
I thought the battery would suck on the DNA as well with that screen but the user reviews on Verizon say otherwise. Most people are very pleased with the battery performance. I still do think a larger battery would have been a better choice though. The design of the dna is amazing though. It is a very good looking phone.
Last edited:
Extremely nice looking phone. I was playing with it while waiting on the Note 2. 5" is easier to handle than 5.5" too. I still love the Note, but I really think HTC could of have the best phone out if it wasn't for the battery and no micro sd slot
Horace Deidu said he was just "imagining" about the Galaxy ad amounts.
We don't know the actual worldwide breakdown, as both the $1B for Apple and the $3B or whatever for Samsung are total ad budgets for everything each company sells.
However, we DO have access to US figures for iOS/Android, so let's look at those. The data comes from Apple revelations at the recent CA trial, and from AdAge reports.
-- Now for some actual Galaxy and iOS ad budgets for the US (phones and tablets) ---
In 2008:
- Apple - $98 million for iOS ads
- Samsung - ?
- Apple - $150 million for iOS out of a $501 million total ad budget
- Samsung - ?
- Apple - $346 million for iOS out of $691 million total
- Samsung -$79 million for Galaxy products
- Apple - ~$450 million (using 2010 %) for iOS out of $933 million total
- Samsung - $142 million for all Galaxy devices; of which $64 million was for the SII phone.
- Apple - ~$500 million (using 2010 %) for iOS out of $1B total
- Samsung - $300 million + expected for Galaxy advertising out of $3B total
Okay. So while we haven't calculated real figures for the rest of the world, apparently Apple has always outspent Samsung for phone/tablet ads in the USA. (Contrary input with references welcome.)
Last edited:
Couldn't have said it better myself. People are spreading word about the iPhone because they love it whereas Sales people, marketers and staff at Verizon AT&T and other mobile operators are "Pushing" samsung phones because they are getting paid to do so.
Hey kdarling it is true that from Samsung's own numbers Horace cant break down how much of that $13B is being spent on pushing the SG3 and their other smartphones. This is specifically because Samsung fails to break down these numbers. However on his podcast "The shoe sellers dilemma" at the 50:25 mark he starts discussing how though he can't see the breakdown he would argue that yes alot of the money is spent on their smartphones. Samsung is not advertising home appliances like TVs, refrigerators and etc- when was the last time you saw an ad for this?. They aren't advertising their microprocessors - these are products other companies buy from them - not people. Then looking at their most profitable business --> smartphones its pretty obvious that they are spending the money on this.. Are you as a company going to spend your advertising money on your lesser profitable businesses ? No..
To see a breakdown of Samsung's profits by division again you can refer to the cost of selling galaxies link i provided before. You will see that in Semiconductors and Tvs and appliances they are making "some" money but their mobile is where is at due to the crazy growth and high margin in comparison to their other products.
It is there where that crazy $13B dollars is being spent. This number wasn't made up, if you pull up Samsung's Financial releases you will see these expenses there.
Last edited:
Obviously many smartphone users have a different opinion, as the chart would illustrate!
You right, he can't. So as he put it, he "imagined" what portion might be for Galaxies.
I instead gave pretty solid figures for US advertising of iOS and Galaxy products over the years.
I've read Samsung's financial releases. Have you?
Horace was adding in non-advertising sales commissions, cost of promotions (which includes going to industry trade shows), public relations, etc on Samsung's side.... while not doing the same for Apple.
Basically, he was doing what a lot of analysts do: going for the shock headline factor, knowing that most people are too lazy to dig deeper.
You are comparing Apples's world budget to Samsung's US budget. Kinda proves Samsung is about marketing only.
The total budgets for both companies are for the world and all their products.
The iOS/Galaxy figures are only for the USA.
We know the iOS figures because Apple was trying to prove in a USA trial how much they spent in the USA to advertise the iPhone and iPad. This is important to get trade dress protection.
The Galaxy figures come from AdAge for the USA.
Being a former bb user i disagree. The damage done by their slow laggy phones and os is too big. It would take years for me to forget how much bb sucks. Plus the new phone they are coming out with is an iphone 4 clone. People arent going to go for it.
ditto!
LG has always had terrible phones. i remember i brought a flip LG phone back in 2005. and within 3 months the screen started acting funky. LG was a piece of junk then and it is a piece of junk now.
Well, it would seem that the "marketing" that Apple does is a magnitude less than Samsung with all the spiffs and bogo's.
http://www.asymco.com/2012/11/29/the-cost-of-selling-galaxies/
Whether Apple makes the "best" phones is subjective.
Apple spending more on marketing? Decidedly false.
Apple has brand, product, pricing, and retail advantages over Samsung.
Samsung is buying its market share, fairly, and frankly killing the other Android OEM's.
First things first. The Adage report you are using as a reference for your data is a report using another Sources Data---> Kantor Media. Are they trusted? Who knows. Where are their exact numbers, Do you have them? - I didnt see them in the links you provided. I need factual information from what either Samsung Provides or the Court Trial Factual Data. Do you have a link to the Court Trials Data or a link where Samsung States this in a Financial Report? I wasn't able to find anything on Google so neither of your two sources or links are valid as far as Im concerned.
Finally as far as Samsung's Financial Release. Yes I have seen it. Horace Deidus information matches line for line what is in Samsung's numbers. Korean Won Conversion and all. The numbers he gives are exactly what is Samsungs Financial releases except for where he estimates Samsungs Q4 2012 Marketing Expenses (he discloses that he estimated this). The 2011 data and the 2012 data all the way to Q3 is exact. The Q4 data may be estimate but that shouldn't change the 2012 data much and in fact theres a chance he underestimated that data.
So in other words. No, I disbelieve that data you posted, unless you can give me real references. I guess what we are debating here is not the $13B Samsung spent because we know they spent it but more if they spent it on Galaxies and their other smartphones versus their other products. I say Yes, the majority of all that money was spent on advertising their smartphones. I cant substantially prove it due to Samsung's own Fault in not breaking down the numbers but with my own Eyes I don't see Samsung Advertising Samsung TV's, Refrigerators or Microprocessors. Everywhere I go (malls etc) and on TV everywhere all I see is Samsung Advertising for their Smartphones. That is all.
Last edited:
For Google, what exactly has this market share provided in earnings? It looks like investments in Moto will never amount to earnings returns, and forking of the Android OS by Amazon and ultimately OEM's put a question mark on just what the value of Android is to Google.
As an aside, I wonder how much money Google makes off of Samsung for advertising Galaxies?
It's true that Apple has legacy software and hardware, but really no different and certainly less problematic than any other player except Windows Phone 8. If you factor in the probability of Apple migrating to vector driven graphics and a major iOS revision by 2015 (8-10 years of current iOS evolution) Apple doesn't seem to have any impediments to continue growth.
As for Apple success, there weren't really any barriers to entry, contrary to many competitors and pundits at that time. Yes, Apple did build on the existing infrastructure, but they also changed the paradigm of handset/carrier relationship to be more favorable to the user, something that competitors haven't taken advantage of.
Add to that the fact that Apple iPhone is "sticky" in comparison to all others would almost predict that Apple will continue to maintain the lion's share of profits, and a continuing major share of unit sales.
The value of Android is not being at the expenses of a competitor, Microsoft when they bought it.
What?
It's obvious most of Samsung's money is spent advertising their Galaxy series of products. When's the last time you saw a Samsung commercial on TV that wasn't for the Galaxy S3 or the Galaxy note? Samsung was one of the sponsors of the London Olympics and I believe all the athletes were given Galaxy phones to use during the opening and closing ceremonies. Samsung sponsored the prime time Emmy awards and sponsors the Voice (the contestants/judges are seen using Galaxy phones). I see iPhone 5 commercials on TV once in a blue moon. The Samsung Galaxy Note commercial with Dwayne Wade is on American TV all the time.
Why do YOU even care if Samsung spent XXXX amount of dollars on advertising? You sound like your offended. I went from an HTC Evo which I really liked to a Galaxy S2 which made me forget all about the Evo. I have Ipods, Ibooks and Macbook Pros and I prefer the Mac hardware( Even though I do believe it's a bit expensive) and software but I'm typing this reply on an HP desktop which is crappy and I have no problem using windows. I even have an Iphone 4 that my daughter gave after she bought it on CL with a bad ESN. I used it for a while to browse on wifi and ill admit the OS seemed way smoother then my android. Not one reboot but again I have never run stock Android since I root as soon as i get the phone. Apple has more brand recognition and can always count on ppl like you and I to get friends , family and co-workers to get others to try them out. After their in the they are most likely hooked. There is nothing wrong with liking a companies product but the way ppl in this forum make assumptions about what a company did or didn't do and defend their position whether right or wrong just amazes me. So again why does it matter to YOU how much Samsung spent on marketing the galaxy, last time I looked they are still way in the green or am I missing something. I'm pretty sure kdarling will find you the correct facts and links though.