Apple's Share of Worldwide Tablet Shipments Falls Below 40% in 1Q 2013

[adnbek]

You're remembering wrong.

By the way, do you really believe that a company can stuff the market quarter after quarter? Do you really believe that a company that stuff the market quarter after quarter can grow its revenue quarter after quarter?

It's happened before, not to mention that when things aren't moving off the shelf fast enough, they'll simply cut the price and minimize their losses with a fire sale. I saw a Galaxy Tab 2 on sale for $149 the other day. Surely, that can't be profitable. I'm not saying they can't sell them all. But they'll have to definitely go through several heavy price cuts to do so.

Heck, drop the price to a buck and you can boost shipment numbers 100 fold.

Perhaps your recollection is similar to Jodi Arias's.

There is nothing to gain by shipping more and more product than is sold. Marketshare bragging rights do not pay the bills.

Michael

Tell me why Samsung refuses to report sales on their invididual devices then? Why do they obfuscate their numbers by choosing to either a) report total shipments of their flagship devices by quarter or b) report revenue for the year on ALL mobile device revenue without specifying the source of each one?

If the numbers spoke for themselves, why such a huge effort to hide them? No doubt they're doing ok by looking at their earnings, but I strongly doubt they're as good as the shipments lead one to believe. Samsung can ship 9 million tablets in a quarter, but can they sell them all at the original MSRP? Doubtful. I see the prices on their tablets being slashed every month. At some point, they end up selling at cost just to get rid of inventory.

That's partly because the trial figures only included certain accused devices, and only those which were sold in the USA... and people tried to compare that smaller number with worldwide reported sales, which are anywhere from four to twenty times larger.

For example, people were comparing Samsung's report of 2 million tablets sold worldwide in 4Q2010 to the 260K in the trial report... which was of course only US numbers.

Currently only about 5% of Samsung's phone sales are in the USA. The other 95% is in the rest of the world.

View attachment 410634

That makes sense. My bad for misunderstanding. Still though, wouldn't it be nice if Samsung reported actual sales per quarter instead of shipments? They may ship 2 million tablets in one quarter but those same 2 million could have taken twice as long to sell and with several price cuts eating up margin along the way.

It's still a deceptive way of reporting sales. They give the impression they're flying off shelves, even if reality could be completely different. Sales figures are more precise and tell you exactly what is happening.

 

[flottenheimer]

I don't know. If all Samsung tablets were given out for free to those who bought Samsung TVs, it means that Samsung sold 9 million TVs. ...

Don't know how many tablets they gave away. But I'm sure the numbers we're huge.
(Samsung expected to sell 25 million HDTV in 2012)

Where I live (Denmark), you were given a free Samsung tablet when you bought a Samsung Smart-TV for most of 2012. No matter where you bought it. The promotion is still available in some shops. And it looks like the same promotion was/is available in most parts of the world.

 

[Tinmania]

Tell me why Samsung refuses to report sales on their invididual devices then? Why do they obfuscate their numbers by choosing to either a) report total shipments of their flagship devices by quarter or b) report revenue for the year on ALL mobile device revenue without specifying the source of each one?

The real question here is why do you care so much. I merely pointed out something that should be obvious. But if you want to believe they are cranking out product to bury in a hole somewhere have at it.




Michael

 

[Oletros]

No one yet has given an answer to the question why isn't samsung reporting sales. The only one I heard was that Samsung doesn't have access to sell through stats, which is beyond ridiculous.

Why is so important for you that Samsung report shipped smartphones?

And no, like Apple, they don't have access to sell through stats

 

[4TheLoveOfTech]

The real question here is why do you care so much. I merely pointed out something that should be obvious. But if you want to believe they are cranking out product to bury in a hole somewhere have at it.

Michael

It's me, I admit it...

Through my blind devotion to Samsung I've been embezzling from my company and using it to buy up all the Samsung smartphones I can. I'm using an offshore company so it looks like worldwide market share its up.

I confess...

 

[Oletros]

It's happened before, not to mention that when things aren't moving off the shelf fast enough, they'll simply cut the price and minimize their losses with a fire sale. I saw a Galaxy Tab 2 on sale for $149 the other day. Surely, that can't be profitable. I'm not saying they can't sell them all. But they'll have to definitely go through several heavy price cuts to do so.

Are you saying that Samsung devices only sold when are in fire sales? Do you rally believe that?

Tell me why Samsung refuses to report sales on their invididual devices then? Why do they obfuscate their numbers by choosing to either a) report total shipments of their flagship devices by quarter or b) report revenue for the year on ALL mobile device revenue without specifying the source of each one?

Please, can you tell me how many iPhone 5, iPhone 4S and iPH]hone 4 has sold Apple in the last quarter?

If the numbers spoke for themselves, why such a huge effort to hide them?

I don't know, ask Apple why they don't release those numbers

Samsung can ship 9 million tablets in a quarter, but can they sell them all at the original MSRP? Doubtful. I see the prices on their tablets being slashed every month. At some point, they end up selling at cost just to get rid of inventory.

You're joking, don't you?

 

[pirg]

Why is so important for you that Samsung report shipped smartphones?

And no, like Apple, they don't have access to sell through stats

Because it'll actually be comparing apples to apples, why else?

And where is your source that Samsung has no access to sell through stats?

 

[Oletros]

The margins are essentially the Apple markup on each sale. Currently, the Apple margin is about 38% and you would expect Apple profits on sales to exceed Androids profits by the difference in the margins assuming similar quantities sold. In fact, the profit difference between IOS and Android is much higher indicating that either not as many Android devices were actually sold or that the difference in the margins is much greater (Android devices sold at a lose).

Care to point to that figures? Because I think that you're totally lost

----------

Because it'll actually be comparing apples to apples, why else?

And where is your source that Samsung has no access to sell through stats?

Where is your source that Samsung has access to sell through stats? Or, by the way, your source that Apple has access to sell through stats?

 

[pirg]

Where is your source that Samsung has access to sell through stats? Or, by the way, your source that Apple has access to sell through stats?

You're the one stating they don't have access to the sell through stats, aren't you? So you expect me to prove you wrong, rather than you proving yourself right?



What a ridiculous idea that you've come up with. I guess Samsung just ships to the channel with a letter that says "These phones are your problem now..." right?

 

[BaldiMac]

Or, by the way, your source that Apple has access to sell through stats?

Apple reports their channel inventory every quarter.

 

[pirg]

Apple reports their channel inventory every quarter.

Precisely. Apple reports sales (the customer being the channel) and they report inventory. Therefore we know exactly how many phones end up in the hands of the consumer (sell through).

 

[BaldiMac]

Precisely. Apple reports sales (the customer being the channel) and they report inventory. Therefore we know exactly how many phones end up in the hands of the consumer (sell through).

More precisely, Apple reports shipments and channel inventory from which we can figure out approximately how many were sold to consumers.

 

[pirg]

More precisely, Apple reports shipments and channel inventory from which we can figure out approximately how many were sold to consumers.

Even better Point being is it's not rocket science or some huge secret as to how many phones were actually sold to the consumer.

I can't believe that people are actually arguing that Samsung has no clue about sell-through stats

 

[Michael Scrip]

Please stop the blind devotion.

CNN Article Title: Samsung is spanking Apple in earnings, sales

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/29/tech/mobile/samsung-spanking-apple

I am not a fan of any vendor but it really does bother me when someone is posting pure B.S and doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.

My B.S.?

In that entire article... there was no statement about Samsung's "spanking" sales... only estimates from analysts.

All we got was: "Kim further pinned the quarter's success on sales of its flagship smartphone, the Galaxy S3, and its oversized Galaxy Note 2 handset."

Really? Out of 68 million (estimated) smartphones... how many were Galaxy SIII and Note II? What's the big secret?

These are supposed to be the best smartphones in the world according to Samsung... yet Samsung doesn't feel confident enough to share this particular piece of information.

So here's an estimate... 18 million flagships... 50 million garbage phones

Winning!!!

 

[iGrip]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

But developers will go where the money is... so it doesn't matter how much market share a particular platform has.

All that matters is whether they will spend money.

That is true to an extent, but then again, there are many different profitable market sectors. Some cruise companies for example, cater to the black tie crowd, while others make billions serving joe lunchbox and his sunburned kids.

And Apple is actively marketing to broad middle market these days. The times, they are a'changing at Apple.

Nobody can know the future. but I ca 't see how any developer can hope to sell cellphone apps to a smallish group of customers, no matter how well-heeled those customers might be.

Who knows? Not either of us. Most likely, there will continue to be plenty of software for all the popular platforms, with the big-name stuff releasing for each of them.

Look... I get your point... but I'm still seeing more support for iOS devices than Android devices.

Yes. That is true as of now. but it was very, very true a couple of years ago, and much less true now. I expect that it a couple of years, it will not be so true anymore.

 

[4TheLoveOfTech]

My B.S.?

In that entire article... there was no statement about Samsung's "spanking" sales... only estimates from analysts.

All we got was: "Kim further pinned the quarter's success on sales of its flagship smartphone, the Galaxy S3, and its oversized Galaxy Note 2 handset."

Really? Out of 68 million (estimated) smartphones... how many were Galaxy SIII and Note II? What's the big secret?

These are supposed to be the best smartphones in the world according to Samsung... yet Samsung doesn't feel confident enough to share this particular piece of information.

So here's an estimate... 18 million flagships... 50 million garbage phones

Winning!!!

Image

Does it matter if they had 50 billion garbage phones as long as they made huge profits?

I'd think that any company would be happy with their Year over Year earning increase.

Your obsession with this just amazes me. Do you really dislike Samsung that bad? Are you losing sleep over this? Does it have an impact on your retirement or how much you personally earn?

I'm at a loss to understand your obsession and give up trying to create any semblance of a reasonable discussion regarding it.

I lose you win. Samsung lost money last year and will never be anything but a loser company that produces low end phones that only 3rd world poverty stricken countries can afford.

 

[pirg]

Does it matter if they had 50 billion garbage phones as long as they made huge profits?

I'd think that any company would be happy with their Year over Year earning increase.

Your obsession with this just amazes me. Do you really dislike Samsung that bad? Are you losing sleep over this? Does it have an impact on your retirement or how much you personally earn?

I'm at a loss to understand your obsession and give up trying to create any semblance of a reasonable discussion regarding it.

I lose you win. Samsung lost money last year and will never be anything but a loser company that produces low end phones that only 3rd world poverty stricken countries can afford.

So then you agree that it doesn't really matter that Apple has no share since they're making more money than anyone else, right?

I think the point he was making was that marketshare is a useless statistic. I think you have just proven his point.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

That is true to an extent, but then again, there are many different profitable market sectors. Some cruise companies for example, cater to the black tie crowd, while others make billions serving joe lunchbox and his sunburned kids.

And Apple is actively marketing to broad middle market these days. The times, they are a'changing at Apple.

Nobody can know the future. but I can't see how any developer can hope to sell cellphone apps to a smallish group of customers, no matter how well-heeled those customers might be.

Who knows? Not either of us. Most likely, there will continue to be plenty of software for all the popular platforms, with the big-name stuff releasing for each of them.

Yes. That is true as of now. but it was very, very true a couple of years ago, and much less true now. I expect that it a couple of years, it will not be so true anymore.

What if that smallish group still has 500 million potential customers?

iOS userbase keep growing... even though their "share" of the market is shrinking since the market itself is growing. (that's why I cringe at these "market share" comparisons... forgetting that the absolute number of customers is growing too)

There will soon be 1,000,000,000 Android users compared to Apple's 500,000,000

But I don't think that signals "ZOMG Android is the platform to develop for!"

If it's anything like the apps sales percentages today... Apple should still be the hottest shop on the strip.

You're right though... you can't go wrong developing for both.

 

[4TheLoveOfTech]

So then you agree that it doesn't really matter that Apple has no share since they're making more money than anyone else, right?

I think the point he was making was that marketshare is a useless statistic. I think you have just proven his point.

Apple making more profits than Samsung neither makes me money and has no impact on my personal wealth. I'm not invested in either company.

I lose you win and I'm taking my ball home with me.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Does it matter if they had 50 billion garbage phones as long as they made huge profits?

I'd think that any company would be happy with their Year over Year earning increase.

Your obsession with this just amazes me. Do you really dislike Samsung that bad? Are you losing sleep over this? Does it have an impact on your retirement or how much you personally earn?

I'm at a loss to understand your obsession and give up trying to create any semblance of a reasonable discussion regarding it.

I lose you win. Samsung lost money last year and will never be anything but a loser company that produces low end phones that only 3rd world poverty stricken countries can afford.

I'm just bored... and you're pretty fun to torment

It's weird seeing all these TV commercials for Samsung saying how great their flagship Galaxy phones are... and how stupid Apple users are.

But then Samsung's results come out (or estimates) and these same amazing Galaxy phones aren't as hot as we are led to believe.

It's hilarious that the words "spank" and "sales" are used in the article you linked... but there are no sales numbers. And that Samsung's own Vice-President of Mobile Planning hinted that the Galaxy SIII and Note II helped propel Samsung's incredible sales... yet those two models don't even make up the bulk of their sales.

I don't hate Samsung... I just hate their practices.

Then again... all corporations are scum... so whaddya gonna do.

 

[spyguy10709]

You can come to my office, my colleague has a Samsung Galaxy Tab. But we're not in the United States, which appears to be the hub of the tablet hype. Most people here regard tablets as fancy, but essentially useless toys.

You don't see many people using tablets in Germany, at least not in public or outside their homes. Phablets and smartphones with large screens are an entirely different story - those you can see very often, because they actually serve a purpose while still being true mobile devices that still fit in a pocket.

Everybody who I know who has a tablet only uses it at home on the couch or in bed before they go to sleep. You definitely don't see anybody outside taking pictures with a tablet. For everything that goes beyond simple web surfing (where "simple" means the kind that does not even involve typing a URL) or playing casual games, people still prefer to use a real computer.

Tablets might be a big thing in the US, but it seems that the average European is more resistant to their attraction.

That's very interesting. I go to a private high school, and everywhere you go you see kids with iPads taking notes, doing homework, or goofing off. I mean, we're also an 85% apple campus according to the tech department, so our numbers are skewed.

When I go into NYC, I see tons of people, from CEOs to mothers with kids that are using or are with someone using an iPad. It's really, really interesting to see the diversity of iPad users.

 

[tongxinshe]

Apple never had a market share advantage over the IBM PC... ever. The idea that WinTel PCs pushed Apple towards extinction is not entirely true.

Apple's downfall in the 80's and 90's was mostly from mistakes they made themselves.

Bad CEOs... the Mac clones... uninspiring product lines... the list goes on.

Then Steve came back as CEO... killed the clones... and streamlined their product lines. Then they eventually made new products and returned to profitability.

And all that happened regardless of what the WinTel guys were doing.

Here's a breakdown of computer market share over 24 years in history:

Image

Some trend, huh.

How is the Mac still around today? WinTel is clearly "beating" Apple in market share, right?

Answer: Market share is for chumps

Apple instead focused on great products that people enjoy... and they happen to have great margins.

Apple never got involved in the "race to the bottom" like the other PC companies.

You're right... anything is possible. But I'm 99.999% sure Apple will still be around when I'm old and gray

In your graph above the author excluded Apple II and other similar offerings from Apple.

Never blame Apple's financial problem to the "licensing Mac OS" policy. Apple was already near to bankrupt when it started to allow for Mac clones.

Sure, streamlining the product line game Apple a temporary breath in finance, but given its continuous market share free-fall, Apple would have still slowly marched towards its extinction without iPod, iPhone and iPad.

 

[Michael Scrip]

In your graph above the author excluded Apple II and other similar offerings from Apple.

Never blame Apple's financial problem to the "licensing Mac OS" policy. Apple was already near to bankrupt when it started to allow for Mac clones.

Sure, streamlining the product line game Apple a temporary breath in finance, but given its continuous market share free-fall, Apple would have still slowly marched towards its extinction without iPod, iPhone and iPad.

Yeah... I didn't say licensing Mac OS was their only problem. There were multiple problems, right?

So what were they?

Was market share to blame?

How? Did Microsoft have too much market share and Apple not enough? That doesn't make a company go out of business... lack of funds do.

It's easy to look at a market with two players... Windows and Mac... one giant and one miniscule... and draw some sort of conclusion.

But what happens when there are more than two players?

Take the auto industry. You've got Ford, Chevy, Honda, Hyundia, Nissan, etc, etc, etc...

So what happens then? Does one company have to stay above a certain percentage of the market to stay in business? Heck no. They just have to make enough money to cover their expenses and hopefully turn a profit.

And that's why I don't think Apple is in trouble for not having enough market share.

It doesn't matter where they fall on a market share chart... or how they compare with other companies.

Apple sells products... a lot of them. And they earn a lot of money from those products.

Money that keeps them in business and away from bankruptcy.

Hell... look at this article... "Apple drops below 40% tablet market share"

That sounds bad, right?

Then you read that they just sold 19 million tablets in 3 months... or over 200,000 every day... earning billions in profit.

So which is more important... their location on a market share chart... or money?

 

[fermat-au]

Interest that MacRumors choose to include only the first and not the second table from the IDG press release. The second table shows sales by OS.
Android 56.5%
iOS 39.6%
This is almost and exact swap from the same quarter one year ago.

 

[pirg]

So which is more important... their location on a market share chart... or money?

To apple, of course it's the money. Just as it is to Google. Or samsung, etc. Market share news is good forum fodder, and a way for one group of users to "one up" another group, but I have a strong feeling Motorola is not sitting around giving themselves high fives because of android marketshare when they're hemorrhaging money.