Apple Hits New High with 8.8% of Worldwide Mobile Phone Market in 1Q 2012

[fjose1929]

Originally Posted by kdarling

I thought Samsung's IM division had revenue of 23.2 trillion won ~= US$ 20.6 billion. Perhaps different exchange rate. Anyway...

You're mixing up retail and wholesale prices.

How much a phone sells for to the public, is not how much the retailer paid the phone maker.

Look at page 3 of document. Mobile portion of IM (includes all mobile devices) total is 18.9 trillion yen or $16.7 billion. If asp of smartphones is $500, total revenue for smartphones alone at 44 million units would be $22 billion. At $400 it will be $17.6 billion. At $300 it will be $13.2 billion. How much were the ASP for feature phones and tablets and other devices. 50 million feature phone at $100 is another $5 billion. 2 million tablets at 300 would be an addional $600 million. Baloney

[drorpheus]

Originally Posted by Taz Mangus

So now you did not state "samsung is the mfg of all the guts in all of you iphones and ipads". Thanks for refuting yourself. LOL!

You read any of the links?

I'd consider the screen, the cpu/gpu, the memory, and flash storage, pretty much all of it aside from the cornering glass, and the little metal back, and the cellular chips and battery. But yeah your right without the parts samsung makes, you still have a fully working ipad or iphone.

[drorpheus]

Originally Posted by Taz Mangus

http://www.jailbreakmine.com/sharp-s...-3-lcd-screens

and they say the link master only rides at nite...


http://www.macrumors.com/2012/03/13/...y-in-new-ipad/

TUh Tuh two for tuesday.

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/03...de-by-samsung/

http://www.slashgear.com/apples-new-...sist-23224289/

[JAT]

Originally Posted by fjose1929

Look at page 3 of document. Mobile portion of IM (includes all mobile devices) total is 18.9 trillion yen or $16.7 billion. If asp of smartphones is $500, total revenue for smartphones alone at 44 million units would be $22 billion. At $400 it will be $17.6 billion. At $300 it will be $13.2 billion. How much were the ASP for feature phones and tablets and other devices. 50 million feature phone at $100 is another $5 billion. 2 million tablets at 300 would be an addional $600 million. Baloney

I'll probably get downvoted for this too.

Retail price does not equal revenue. Once again: consumer does not equal company.

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by min_t

They can't even upgrade current phones to ICS which is still <2% of the installed base

Just because an iOS version is released to developers for testing, does not mean regular iPhone and iPad users will get it the day after.

Likewise, just because ICS source code was "released", it doesn't mean that upgrades can happen instantly. It takes a while to look at it, port and test. So it takes a little while, just as it takes Apple a while to finalize their versions. Now ICS is coming out soon for quite a few devices.

--

iOS and Android updates are different animals anyway. iOS is still adding basic functionality. Android is updating look and feel more than anything else.

Just as with iOS, most developers target back to the least API level needed, which for Android apps is usually either 1.6 Donut or 2.1 Eclair... and 99% are on 2.1 or above.

Almost all Android devices have the latest Google apps, since those are constantly being updated separately.

.

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by JAT

Retail price does not equal revenue. Once again: consumer does not equal company.

Neither of those statements contradict what you were responding to.

ASP in this context is revenue divided by units. iPhone ASP is around $650.

If the estimates for Samsung smartphone sales in this post are correct (42.2 million), his point was that their average selling price would have to be ridiculously low (compared to an iPhone) based on their total mobile revenue of $16.7 billion.

If you assume that the entire revenue was from smartphones, that's only $395 per phone. But IDC also estimated 51 million feature phones sold. Throw in a couple million tablets and Samsung smartphone ASP appears to be around half of the iPhone. That seems hard to believe base on all the reports of pricing for the most popular models that seem to be in line with iPhones, give or take $100 in subsidies.

It seems to me that either these smartphone numbers are inflated or the popularity of their high end smartphones is overblown.

[LagunaSol]

Originally Posted by DeathChill

I know this is off-topic, but why is LTD banned? I don't think I've ever seen him insult a single person. I know his beliefs are to the extreme, but I find it a bit strange that he is banned while those with extreme beliefs on the opposite end aren't banned. Very strange.

Unfortunately not strange at all. MacRumors has a very pro-troll mentality, so long as the troll is bashing Apple and not trolling the Apple-bashing trolls. Make sense?

The resident Apple haters here are apparently good for page hits since they whip discussion threads into a frenzy, completely immune to any disciplinary action.

Sad.

[Digital Skunk]

Originally Posted by LagunaSol

Unfortunately not strange at all. MacRumors has a very pro-troll mentality, so long as the troll is bashing Apple and not trolling the Apple-bashing trolls. Make sense?

The resident Apple haters here are apparently good for page hits since they whip discussion threads into a frenzy, completely immune to any disciplinary action.

Sad.

Funny, as an Apple fanboy, I think it's the other way around. It seems like the Apple supports get away with anything so long as they are praising Apple via insults and trolling comments to levelheaded fanpersons like myself.

It seems that one cannot get a word in edge wise so long as it's not "ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY "

[LagunaSol]

Originally Posted by Digital Skunk

Funny, as an Apple fanboy, I think it's the other way around. It seems like the Apple supports get away with anything so long as they are praising Apple via insults and trolling comments to levelheaded fanpersons like myself.

It seems that one cannot get a word in edge wise so long as it's not "ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY "

There may be some truth to this, but one must recognize this is MacRumors. One should expect a pro-Apple view here. That doesn't mean one can't express contrarian views. But what about those members who express nothing but contrarian views? That Apple is evil and their customers are lemmings? Hey, they're entitled to their opinion, but coming to an Apple-centric forum like this and making such a case over and over (and over) again is inflammatory...and trollish.

Why these people are even here remains a mystery. I'm no fan of Microsoft, hence I don't frequent Microsoft-centric forums. Ditto Android, Samsung, etc. Yet the chronic trolls come here day after day to rant and rage about Apple with impunity. Confront them and end up in time-out, or banned. It makes no sense.

[JAT]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac

Neither of those statements contradict what you were responding to.

ASP in this context is revenue divided by units. iPhone ASP is around $650.

If the estimates for Samsung smartphone sales in this post are correct (42.2 million), his point was that their average selling price would have to be ridiculously low (compared to an iPhone) based on their total mobile revenue of $16.7 billion.

ASP, aka retail, is not what Samsung claims as revenue. So, yes, it is different. Does Forbes have to come answer this one for you people to believe an actual accountant, too?

You boys would argue with a woman over what her cramps feel like.

[jctevere]

I still don't get how Apple only has 31% of the marketshare for U.S. based smartphones... Here in NY iPhone is DEFINITELY the majority... I don't even see any other phones on a day to day basis, besides maybe an android phone (but that is rare). I would be curious to see the u.s. smartphone marketshare broken down at the state level.

[Peterg2]

Originally Posted by LagunaSol

Unfortunately not strange at all. MacRumors has a very pro-troll mentality, so long as the troll is bashing Apple and not trolling the Apple-bashing trolls. Make sense?

The resident Apple haters here are apparently good for page hits since they whip discussion threads into a frenzy, completely immune to any disciplinary action.

Sad.

I will miss LTD. I almost invariably disagreed with his posts, occasionally vehemently, but I remembered his moniker and I probably only remember some 30 or so monikers of people posting in the threads here. I really enjoy fora (and irc channels) when there are very disparate views (not trolling generally, although the occasional troll can be highly skillful).

Just to clarify, I am not commenting in the slightest on the banning. That is not my right as a member here and I would never overstep. I am simply making my personal observation on his absence.

[orthorim]

Originally Posted by designgeek

Queue a week of market share posts on Daring Fireball.

LOL - you got downvoted but I think it's funny. Gruber has a pet peeve with market share, for sure - I guess it's because of Google and Android fanboys' crowing about 800,000 activations per day.

That said - Gruber is absolutely right. Whenever I go to the mall there's three or four Samsung "flagship" models on sale - those I consider direct competitors to the iPhone. The Note, the Galaxy SII, the Nexus.

Then there's about 10 or 15 varieties of Samsung Android cheap phones. And these get snapped up like the mid-range Nokias used to. They cost $100 - $150 vs the $600 high end models. They have smaller screens and run Android 2.3.

These phones get grouped in the smartphone category and "win" it for Samsung, even though the way people use them is anything but smartphone: They take pictures, send messages, and make phone calls. Facebook? Nah. Email? Nope. Web - try it on a processor as slow as these, you won't try it again. It's ******. They're better than the "complete garbage" Nokia Symbian phones but they're still 95% dumb phone.

If you have $100 or $200 - these cheapo Samsung smartphones are the best deal by far. Nothing wrong with it.

I just wouldn't count them in the smartphone category.

I see Android's position as perilous right now - they're on the verge of losing to the iPhone. It's really Samsung vs. Apple - the other vendors are irrelevant. And Samsung has so much power over Android now, they might replace the ad platform with their own, they might start focusing on Bada, their in-house platform. Android is now solely dependent on Samsung. And that wasn't the plan - the plan was to create a powerful platform that wins as vendors compete and drive prices down, and make devices in all shapes and forms to win over the iPhone.

I think Android will remain on top of the heap for unit numbers for a while to come, for years, but I also think they're truly on the verge of becoming a niche player in the high end. The high end is getting clobbered by the much superior platform that's iOS.

In short: They're selling tons of units, but without strengthening the platform. It's fragmented out the wazoo.

----------

Originally Posted by Exhale

S5660, S5830, S5690, S5570 are showing up at 'less than 400' without a contract for me. (Some less than 200)

Those all have higher volumes than the 32gb 4s.

Dude, There;s about 10 - 15 models (15 if you count the older ones, these things rack up revisions really fast) in the mall here in Thailand right now that cost $100 - $150 without subsidy. They're all over Asia.

Samsung Cooper, Y, Me, Galaxy Mini, et cetera. Lots of colorful names, small screens, and low prices. These sell by the bucketload. Everyone who can't afford an iPhone buys them - they're as close as you can get to an iPhone for $150.

----------

Originally Posted by fjose1929

The cheapest Samsung smartphone you can buy without contract, anywhere in the world, is $400.

When you say "the world" is that like the "world series" in Baseball?

Samsung models for $150 are everywhere here in South East Asia. Samsung is wiping the floor with Nokia and LG for this market segment.

[Dmunjal]

Samsung is leading no doubt but HTC isn't going away with the new One series and Google didn't buy Motorola for just the patents.

I would argue that Android is winning on the lowend on price and the highend with features that the iphone doesn't have. But the iphone is winning the midrange where the market is bigger.

[fjose1929]

Originally Posted by orthorim

LOL - you got downvoted but I think it's funny. Gruber has a pet peeve with market share, for sure - I guess it's because of Google and Android fanboys' crowing about 800,000 activations per day.

That said - Gruber is absolutely right. Whenever I go to the mall there's three or four Samsung "flagship" models on sale - those I consider direct competitors to the iPhone. The Note, the Galaxy SII, the Nexus.

Then there's about 10 or 15 varieties of Samsung Android cheap phones. And these get snapped up like the mid-range Nokias used to. They cost $100 - $150 vs the $600 high end models. They have smaller screens and run Android 2.3.

These phones get grouped in the smartphone category and "win" it for Samsung, even though the way people use them is anything but smartphone: They take pictures, send messages, and make phone calls. Facebook? Nah. Email? Nope. Web - try it on a processor as slow as these, you won't try it again. It's ******. They're better than the "complete garbage" Nokia Symbian phones but they're still 95% dumb phone.

If you have $100 or $200 - these cheapo Samsung smartphones are the best deal by far. Nothing wrong with it.

I just wouldn't count them in the smartphone category.

I see Android's position as perilous right now - they're on the verge of losing to the iPhone. It's really Samsung vs. Apple - the other vendors are irrelevant. And Samsung has so much power over Android now, they might replace the ad platform with their own, they might start focusing on Bada, their in-house platform. Android is now solely dependent on Samsung. And that wasn't the plan - the plan was to create a powerful platform that wins as vendors compete and drive prices down, and make devices in all shapes and forms to win over the iPhone.

I think Android will remain on top of the heap for unit numbers for a while to come, for years, but I also think they're truly on the verge of becoming a niche player in the high end. The high end is getting clobbered by the much superior platform that's iOS.

In short: They're selling tons of units, but without strengthening the platform. It's fragmented out the wazoo.

----------



Dude, There;s about 10 - 15 models (15 if you count the older ones, these things rack up revisions really fast) in the mall here in Thailand right now that cost $100 - $150 without subsidy. They're all over Asia.

Samsung Cooper, Y, Me, Galaxy Mini, et cetera. Lots of colorful names, small screens, and low prices. These sell by the bucketload. Everyone who can't afford an iPhone buys them - they're as close as you can get to an iPhone for $150.

----------



When you say "the world" is that like the "world series" in Baseball?

Samsung models for $150 are everywhere here in South East Asia. Samsung is wiping the floor with Nokia and LG for this market segment.

Motorola just reported. Their average selling price for all mobile phones was $275. You mean to tell me that the mighty Samsung sells for less.

If Samsung sold a total of 93 million mobile phones, and they match Motorola in ASP, they should have at least $22 billion in revenue from mobile phones alone. Again baloney.

[sha4000]

Originally Posted by jctevere

I still don't get how Apple only has 31% of the marketshare for U.S. based smartphones... Here in NY iPhone is DEFINITELY the majority... I don't even see any other phones on a day to day basis, besides maybe an android phone (but that is rare). I would be curious to see the u.s. smartphone marketshare broken down at the state level.

Thats funny there are certainly alot of iphones in NY but i see plenty of android phones on a daily basis and here I live I see more htc and samsung phones than anything. I even saw some blackberry and was truly surprised that ppl were still using them but every doesnt want to pay $200 for an upgrade.

[unlinked]

Originally Posted by min_t

I'm curious. What is it you think that android will have in hardware for this year and next besides the quad core that will be leaps and bounds way better than iPad 3 specs. LTE? Bluetooth 4? NFC? They can't even upgrade current phones to ICS which is still <2% of the installed base

ICS is 5% now.

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by JAT

ASP, aka retail, is not what Samsung claims as revenue. So, yes, it is different. Does Forbes have to come answer this one for you people to believe an actual accountant, too?

I'm guessing you are an accountant who deals with retail. ASP (Average Selling Price) can also be used as I clearly described. Check out any number of smartphone market analyses that discuss iPhone ASP and run the numbers yourself.

Even if you still feel I used the term wrong, my definitions were clear, so the point I was trying to make should be clear as well.

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by orthorim

Samsung Cooper, Y, Me, Galaxy Mini, et cetera. Lots of colorful names, small screens, and low prices. These sell by the bucketload. Everyone who can't afford an iPhone buys them - they're as close as you can get to an iPhone for $150.

They also have more memory, GPS, 3G, and a faster CPU than the first iPhone. Pretty amazing, really. Their primary downside is having only a QVGA screen.

Samsung models for $150 are everywhere here in South East Asia. Samsung is wiping the floor with Nokia and LG for this market segment.

Indeed, carriers have stated that Samsung's more inexpensive models are top-selling favorites in many countries, from India to Greece to Portugal. Considering that they're 1/5 the price of the latest iPhones, it's no wonder.

--

To those attempting to figure out sales, here's some raw facts to help:

• Apple includes high margin iPhone accessories in their iPhone revenue reports.
• Carriers pay about 40% more for iPhones than other smartphones (which is why some world carriers have stopped subsidizing them).
• Apple's average iPhone profit margin is over 40%.
• Samsung's average profit margin on all types of phones is 17%, and low as 5% on dumbphones.

Consider a Galaxy Y (Mini) that retails worldwide for $150 or less without contract. It's quite likely that it costs Samsung about $100 (* including royalties ) to make and they wholesale it for $120.

It would be pretty fair, I think, to assume that sales concentrate towards the lowest end, but are spread out across the whole price range. So if Samsung wholesaled:

52 million dumbphones at $100
20 million smartphones at $120
12 million smartphones at $250
06 million smartphones at $350
04 million smartphones at $450
======================
94 million phones with $15 billion revenue, leaving room for tablet revenue

So yes, the numbers put out by firms more experienced than us, seem quite possible.

(*) Remember, the cheaper the retail price, the lower GSM and other royalties are. The intent is to make phones easier to buy for the world's population, not just the relatively affluent. This FRAND percentage is why Apple is complaining at the high end about royalties. However, at their profit margin they can afford more. It's the whole point of the arrangement.

[Digital Skunk]

Originally Posted by kdarling

...They also have more memory, GPS, 3G, and a faster CPU than the first iPhone. Pretty amazing, really. Their primary downside is having only a QVGA screen.....

Can you PLEASE stop posting things that make sense!
jk

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by kdarling

To those attempting to figure out sales, here's some raw facts to help:

• Apple includes high margin iPhone accessories in their iPhone revenue reports.
• Carriers pay about 40% more for iPhones than other smartphones (which is why some world carriers have stopped subsidizing them).
• Apple's average iPhone profit margin is over 40%.
• Samsung's average profit margin on all types of phones is 17%, and low as 5% on dumbphones.

Consider a Galaxy Y (Mini) that retails worldwide for $150 or less without contract. It's quite likely that it costs Samsung about $100 (* including royalties ) to make and they wholesale it for $120.

It would be pretty fair, I think, to assume that sales concentrate towards the lowest end, but are spread out across the whole price range. So if Samsung wholesaled:

52 million dumbphones at $100
20 million smartphones at $120
12 million smartphones at $250
06 million smartphones at $350
04 million smartphones at $450
======================
94 million phones with $15 billion revenue, leaving room for tablet revenue

So yes, the numbers put out by firms more experienced than us, seem quite possible.

(*) Remember, the cheaper the retail price, the lower GSM and other royalties are. The intent is to make phones easier to buy for the world's population, not just the relatively affluent. This FRAND percentage is why Apple is complaining at the high end about royalties. However, at their profit margin they can afford more. It's the whole point of the arrangement.

Lots of assumptions there, but good information. Especially about the sales prices of low end smartphones and feature phones.

[lilo777]

Originally Posted by jctevere

I still don't get how Apple only has 31% of the marketshare for U.S. based smartphones... Here in NY iPhone is DEFINITELY the majority... I don't even see any other phones on a day to day basis, besides maybe an android phone (but that is rare). I would be curious to see the u.s. smartphone marketshare broken down at the state level.

Here on the West coast people prefer more advanced phones that offer LTE, NFC, quad core CPUs, pressure sensitive stylus, 12MP cameras etc. It's surprising how backward NY is.

[JAT]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac

I'm guessing you are an accountant who deals with retail. ASP (Average Selling Price) can also be used as I clearly described. Check out any number of smartphone market analyses that discuss iPhone ASP and run the numbers yourself.

Even if you still feel I used the term wrong, my definitions were clear, so the point I was trying to make should be clear as well.

You are assuming the ASP comes from the manufacturer. We are talking about news reports about retail sales, so I doubt that they have Samsung figures, or know what BestBuy and others pay Samsung for product. I'm sure I could be wrong, but I did think about all this before my first related post. Also, as mentioned many times, if they are simply backing into it, the "units" that the public knows are shipped, not sold. Margin is pretty bad on unsold product.

Clearly they are wrong somewhere, as the figures you and the other guy posted show.

And no, I don't deal with retail. Or mfgring, anymore. Accounting is accounting, anyway.

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by JAT

You are assuming the ASP comes from the manufacturer.

I didn't assume that. I calculated it based on the formula in my post.

We are talking about news reports about retail sales, so I doubt that they have Samsung figures, or know what BestBuy and others pay Samsung for product.

Revenue/Units was what I was talking about.

I'm sure I could be wrong, but I did think about all this before my first related post. Also, as mentioned many times, if they are simply backing into it, the "units" that the public knows are shipped, not sold. Margin is pretty bad on unsold product.

For Samsung, the "units" were guesses from IDC. Revenues were from Samsung's financial statements.

Clearly they are wrong somewhere, as the figures you and the other guy posted show.

Not necessarily "wrong" as kdarling pointed out, but shockingly low ASP compared to the iPhone if they are close to accurate.

[JAT]

Just once I'd like to understand why I get this crap. If we are going to bring up kdarling, ok, let's. His post is what started this particular thread, which I defended because I agreed. Nobody is bugging him about it. In fact, he posts about wholesale prices (not retail) and you offer it as proof about ASP/sales.

Since I'm not allowed to be an expert, please note the retail bent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_selling_price
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/...#axzz1tlggDG2S

Last I checked there are no Samsung stores where they receive 100% revenue from sales. VZW, BestBuy, ATT, etc. charge markup when selling a Galaxy. Revenue = sales less distribution channel markup. ASP is a retail definition. Perhaps, it could relate to Samsung's bottom line directly, it does for say, Ebay sellers. Or if markup is zero. But I don't think it does in this particular case of smartphones.

I'm really not trying to be a jerk, here. This is not complex. And yes, I feel the media is wrong well over 50% of the time when refering to numbers, whether accounting or statistics. Probably any other numbers, too.