Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yes, Apple reports units sold. Most of which are millions of units sold to retailers and carriers to fill their inventory. Only about 20% of iPhones are sold through Apple stores as direct end user sales.

Sometimes... especially during new model debuts... all of those retailer phones end up sold through to end users in the same quarter, but not always. The total amount sitting in inventory around the world rises all the time, due to more retailers coming online:

View attachment 470624

In fact, as of the end of the first quarter of 2014, there were over 15 million iPhones in inventories around the world, that Apple has reported as sold (to retailers).

To piggyback on that... Apple is currently selling iPhones at a rate of 485,000 every day.

Those 15 million iPhones in inventory will be gone in a month.... and replaced by more iPhones.

That's one thing about Apple products... they don't sit on a shelf for very long. They find a home very quickly.
 
When you need to compare apple to Nokia you know macrumors is reaching for some positive.

You don't need to spin the news macrumors just report the bigger headline

Apple is doomed

Market share is meaningless.

Giving away phones for next to nothing in a race to the bottom to gain market share isn't a sound business strategy. Just ask HP and Dell who dominate the PC industry (over 50% combined) and yet can barely make a profit, while Macs with their <10% share dwarfs them in that regard.

Another case in point, Samsung Mobile's lion-share of its profits are from the Galaxy S and Note series alone, which represent only a fraction of their total unit sales. The rest brings them next to nothing, except looking good from a market share perspective.
 
Can't have it both ways though. Leaving the low end alone allows others to survive, and you just said they weren't interested in doing that.

Smartphone marketshare percentages are deceptive, as the size of the market is rapidly changing. If you want a better idea of how Apple's doing, look at raw the numbers, or percentage share of the mobile market. If you look at either of those metrics, they are still rising. The impact of a larger iPhone will be interesting to see though.

You could say that, but Apple does only seem to target other high end devices in it's lawsuits like the Galaxy Note or Galaxy S4/5, I don't think it targets low end handsets??
 
…..Apple really doesn't care what everyone else is doing *EXCEPT* when they completely rip off what Apple is doing. Do you see Apple suing Microsoft? NO. Why? Because Microsoft didn't steal the hell out of iOS like Google did. Sure their OS isn't the best, but it's far from crap. There are some things that it does that I wish iOS could do. They did something different and are slowly getting some market share. The way iOS works seems obvious today—but it's only obvious because it works so well. It's as if people think that's the way it should have always worked. But it didn't—not by a longshot—before iOS came around. We take it for granted today, but the first time I held an iPhone on June 29, 2007 it was like a magical little slab of aluminum and glass. All other phones seemed like ancient artifacts by comparison. And Eric Schmidt was sitting on Apple's board, funneling inside information back to the mothership. Changing their design from a BlackBerry clone to an iPhone clone. That fact is well documented. Samsung even cloned things down to the look of the chargers, cables, and even stole App Store icons to put in graphics in the walls of their stores. If Apple's designs weren't patentable, then they shouldn't have been granted a patent. But that's how it works. Deal with it. Samsung is a lying, cheating, scumbag company. Anyone who values great design should hate Samsung and how they take the hard work of fine craftsmen and bastardize it for their own profits. On the other hand we have Google, which is a creepy company that reads your personal information and is slowly trying to take over everything on the internet. They have quite questionable morals. These are my personal opinions about these companies. I do like Microsoft, particularly their entertainment/Xbox division. I prefer Excel over Numbers. I like Sony, especially their camera division. If I bought a PC laptop, it would probably be a Sony. I also like Canon cameras and printers, as well as Epson printers. Audio Technica makes really great microphones. Wacom makes great drawing tablets. Dropbox has the best cloud storage service. WD and Hitachi make great hard drives. My point is there are lots of other great companies out there that make great products that aren't currently ripping off Apple. Even Samsung makes great displays. I just don't see why they have to rip off Apple to be successful. Aren't TVs and refrigerators enough?

+1 Wow, somebody hit a raw nerve with you. But I think you make several good points in that passionate retort.

If I may add, don't forget Sony TVs, pricey yes, but nothing compares imho in PQ, to their top-of-the-line XBR units.
 
Aren't the majority of smartphones Samsung is selling the galaxy series, which is just as expensive, if not more expensive then iPhone.

So samsung shipped twice as many smartphones as apple, meaning Samsung made like double revenue as apple ?


No.
 
Nope. Apple shipped 43.7M iPhones, Samsng was estimated to have "SHIPPED" 85M Smartphones. Still not accurate, but an apples to apples comparison.


AAPL sold 43.7M iPhones--through its retail operations and sales to resellers. Channel inventory grew by @100K. Therefore, AAPL "sold through" @43.6M iPhones. OTOH, Samsung refuses to announce any numbers, b has its paid PR firms produce estimates of phones shipped, most of which are barely above feature phones. Who knows how many of those, if they existed in the first place, end up in the crusher.

----------

HTC one m8 obviously.. the best phone on the market.. any other questions?..


Really? What's it look like? I've never seen one.

----------

Not sure if serious. Why would any of these marketing and research firms want Apple to look bad? What do they gain by "suppressing the story"?



They aren't "marketing and research" firms. They're really just PR firms and Samsung spends beaucoup bucks on PR, and astroturfing.
 
I can see that went over your head. I was quoting Steve Jobs when he was talking about Microsoft in a keynote. Apple really doesn't care what everyone else is doing *EXCEPT* when they completely rip off what Apple is doing. Do you see Apple suing Microsoft? NO. Why? Because Microsoft didn't steal the hell out of iOS like Google did. Sure their OS isn't the best, but it's far from crap. There are some things that it does that I wish iOS could do. They did something different and are slowly getting some market share. The way iOS works seems obvious today—but it's only obvious because it works so well. It's as if people think that's the way it should have always worked. But it didn't—not by a longshot—before iOS came around. We take it for granted today, but the first time I held an iPhone on June 29, 2007 it was like a magical little slab of aluminum and glass. All other phones seemed like ancient artifacts by comparison. And Eric Schmidt was sitting on Apple's board, funneling inside information back to the mothership. Changing their design from a BlackBerry clone to an iPhone clone. That fact is well documented. Samsung even cloned things down to the look of the chargers, cables, and even stole App Store icons to put in graphics in the walls of their stores. If Apple's designs weren't patentable, then they shouldn't have been granted a patent. But that's how it works. Deal with it. Samsung is a lying, cheating, scumbag company. Anyone who values great design should hate Samsung and how they take the hard work of fine craftsmen and bastardize it for their own profits. On the other hand we have Google, which is a creepy company that reads your personal information and is slowly trying to take over everything on the internet. They have quite questionable morals. These are my personal opinions about these companies. I do like Microsoft, particularly their entertainment/Xbox division. I prefer Excel over Numbers. I like Sony, especially their camera division. If I bought a PC laptop, it would probably be a Sony. I also like Canon cameras and printers, as well as Epson printers. Audio Technica makes really great microphones. Wacom makes great drawing tablets. Dropbox has the best cloud storage service. WD and Hitachi make great hard drives. My point is there are lots of other great companies out there that make great products that aren't currently ripping off Apple. Even Samsung makes great displays. I just don't see why they have to rip off Apple to be successful. Aren't TVs and refrigerators enough?

All I have to say to that drivel is what was it Steve Jobs himself stated, oh yes 'Good artists copy, great artists steal'.
 
Last edited:
It mostly doesn't make much difference. The only times where it makes a difference is with unproven and failing products (where a company might ship a lot and then get tons of returns), and if companies try to show off what they did in the first days after a release, where a company might get huge numbers by _shipping_ three months worth of sales to their dealers in the first three days. (As proven by Samsung, that's not even necessary; you can just lie about your sales as proven in court).


Samsung doesn't lie about shipments/sales. Samsung pays sleazeballs like IDC and Tragedy Analfizzures to "estimate" units shipped.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You realize the chart is smartphone vs smartphone on one of the charts.

See my post above - best to stay away from absurd car analogies since your "Ferrari" is sold at Walmart, Costco, etc.

2673-sm-s5300-blanco-atras.jpg


This is not a smartphone is a feature phone in oher words $100 cra$p
 
Image

This is not a smartphone is a feature phone in oher words $100 cra$p

Use your brain a bit then you would not say this. A quick calculation

Apple: 44m phone + 16 mil iPad give 45bil in revenue -- about $750 per device average.

Samsung: 85 mil phone + 13mil tablet give 30bil in revenue (mobile division only) -- about $310 per device avg.

Your crap about Samsung selling mostly $100 device is basically just crap.
 
Samsung doesn't lie about shipments/sales. Samsung pays sleazeballs like IDC and Tragedy Analfizzures to "estimate" units shipped.

For what reason?

IDC says Samsung shipped 85 million smartphone units for the quarter.

Let's assume they lied... and Samsung's actual number is 80 million or 75 million.

What is the advantage of pumping up the numbers? Samsung is still so far ahead of Apple and everyone else.

If Samsung paid IDC to inflate the numbers... it's doesn't really change anything. It seems they just threw away some money.
 
I also believe iPhone6 will be very well received, and help give Apple a boost in market share, however with rumblings of the carriers' desire to gradually get rid of subsidies, in the long term I see clouds on the horizon for Apple's iPhone growth.

There's little doubt the flagship iPhone is a premium product sold at a premium price, and on contract, that is not so much of a disadvantage but when, in the absence of subsidies, consumers have to shell out $650-$850 up front for the latest model (and significantly more in some countries in the developing world, where subsidies even now already are almost non-existent), that may become an issue for Apple on their home turf.

With compelling features and technology, Apple needs to persuade the carriers that keeping subsidies is in the best interests of both themselves and Apple.

The alternative and best option imho, from a consumer's point of view, is something along the lines of the T-Mob model, where upfront cost would be low, while the service plan could be completely separate from the device cost, and payments for the latter portion of the monthly bill would cease, once the device is paid for.
Flagship phones are still pretty high in general so Apple isn't the only one with this issue. If Carries want business they're going to have to adopt T-Mobile's model.
 
The way iOS works seems obvious today—but it's only obvious because it works so well. It's as if people think that's the way it should have always worked. But it didn't—not by a longshot—before iOS came around. We take it for granted today, but the first time I held an iPhone on June 29, 2007 it was like a magical little slab of aluminum and glass. All other phones seemed like ancient artifacts by comparison. And Eric Schmidt was sitting on Apple's board, funneling inside information back to the mothership. Changing their design from a BlackBerry clone to an iPhone clone. That fact is well documented.

I wonder if Tim Cook has been doing the same while sitting on the Nike board of directors? After all, Nike has been in the fitness business in some way shape or form since before Apple existed. And now all of a sudden Apple is coming out with fitness apps and hiring in that area amid strong rumors of a watch with fitness functionality. :eek:
 
I'm pretty sure that the next iPhone will come pretty close to the features that Samsung has been shipping for a year.

If not, then we'll just have to wait for the iPhone 7.
 
Another case in point, Samsung Mobile's lion-share of its profits are from the Galaxy S and Note series alone, which represent only a fraction of their total unit sales.

A pretty big fraction.

Even AI claimed that 1/3 of Samsung's sales are high end S and Note phones.

But, remember that Samsung sells over twice as many smartphones as Apple. So that 1/3 of high end Samsung sales becomes equivalent to 2/3 of Apple sales of ALL its models.

Since the high end Apple 5S has also been estimated at 2/3 of all iPhone sales, Apple and Samsung high end sales could be considered equivalent.

It's the mid and low range where the big difference is.

The rest brings them next to nothing, except looking good from a market share perspective.

You might be confusing Samsung sales with Android in general.

Samsung's average wholesale smartphone selling price is above $300 and they averaged 18% profit margin last year.

This is not 2007. This is 2014, and phones are far cheaper to make. Even the lowliest smartphone makes money these days. This trend towards less cost will continue, just as it always has with electronics.
 
I wonder if Tim Cook has been doing the same while sitting on the Nike board of directors? After all, Nike has been in the fitness business in some way shape or form since before Apple existed. And now all of a sudden Apple is coming out with fitness apps and hiring in that area amid strong rumors of a watch with fitness functionality. :eek:

I'll be first in line when Apple releases their revolutionary new magical aluminum milled sapphire glass soled running shoes!

IT'S TIME APPLE SHAKES UP FOOTWEAR!
 
I'll be first in line when Apple releases their revolutionary new magical aluminum milled sapphire glass soled running shoes!

IT'S TIME APPLE SHAKES UP FOOTWEAR!

You mean the Apple Air Jony's? Or the Air Jony C's? Or the Air Jony Pros? Then they can sue Michael Jordan. :D:D


Disclaimer: This post is intended to be humorous.
 
Air Jony's....WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT? That's brilliant!

I'm brilliant. You're not. :D:D:D



Disclaimer: This post is intended to be humorous. I have no idea as to the level of Renzatics intelligence. Perhaps he is brilliant. But judging by his posts...........................................................:D
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.