But declining. Since several quarters. So are they doing it right? No. Did they do it right in the past? Strategely it seems copying before innovating was the wrong decision too.
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 and Samsung Combined for Over One-Third of Smartphone Sales in Second Quarter
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But declining. Since several quarters. So are they doing it right? No. Did they do it right in the past? Strategely it seems copying before innovating was the wrong decision too.
I have a feeling smartphones reached the quality level which makes people unwilling to replace them every two years. Why get rid of a phone that functions perfectly well and spend $500 on a new one that has two new features?
Kinda like computers in general. Now the CPUs are so fast that you can get 4-5 years out of them and just upgrade RAM and SSD from time to time. My 2008 Mac Pro still gets it done for most of my tasks (except gaming, but Macs always suck at that). I think it'll make the 10 year mark as my main computer; a first for me.
But I don't have to worry about bending a full size computer
They definitely sell them. Up 10% YoY, and that's without releasing any flagship phones. They've only released derivative designs this last year (imagine if Apple hadn't released an iPhone 6 last year and instead, every few months, Apple introduced a new version of the 3GS on Verizon, then an updated 4s on Sprint). Rumor is that they will have a new flagship (finally) once Windows 10 Mobile is released in September.
IMO it's easy to understand why Samsung is failing. Samsung used to be the underdog, whom everyone loved, that made "decent" phones with attractive price tags. They converted a lot of basicphone users into smartphone users. Myself included.
These days, they lost that underdog image after a series of ridiculous marketing campaigns that bashed Apple and its customers (you can bash Apple, but you shouldn't bash the people). They focus all their energy on their premium expensive phones, a market in which they can't really compete with Apple. They can't compete in the lower end market either because of all the Chinese manufacturers like Huawei and Xiaomi. So now, they are stuck in the middle, being eaten away from above and from below.
These days, they lost that underdog image after a series of ridiculous marketing campaigns that bashed Apple and its customers (you can bash Apple, but you shouldn't bash the people). They focus all their energy on their premium expensive phones, a market in which they can't really compete with Apple. They can't compete in the lower end market either because of all the Chinese manufacturers like Huawei and Xiaomi. So now, they are stuck in the middle, being eaten away from above and from below.
I think that was probably bringing a lot of the Android converts back with the bigger iPhone screen. I know I debated moving to Android for the bigger screen before the iPhone 6 came out.
It's OK if you are not a fan of percentages. But they are hardly meaningless, especially when expressed as a change from previous year sales. The "hidden info" was expressed in the chart right below the headline where it should be, as expected.
Percentages when expressed as a vector as in the case above show the direction and magnitude of results, compared to the previous year; i.e. Apple's sales increasing by 35%, and Samsung's decreasing by 2%.
In another story it was revealed that Apple reaps 92% of the profits in the entire smartphone industry.
Both are extremely interesting and valuable information.
That's because we are in the US. To the rest of the world (except other rich countries like the US), Apple and Samsung phones are a luxury which very few can afford. That's why the number for 'other' brands is so large. The others consists of a lot of cheap phones.
"Failing" is a very strange term to describe the market leader. And "not being able to compete" is a remarkably strange claim for the company with the leading technical capabilities and supplier of Apple.
The Samsung S6 Edge is an amazing product. Apple has a huge mountain to climb to match just it's camera. The main issue with both Samsung and Apple, and maybe the issue Apple has always had since the introduced the iPhone, is that the smartphone market is aggressively commoditized so the value of a given innovation only lasts a year or two.
Which is why Apple pushes continual iOS updates that aren't optimized for older devices. With every major upgrade you hear how the model 2+ years old 'slows to a crawl.' You gotta feed the monster.
If you don't, you get a market that's saturated with declining sales like the iPad.
Durn
I was nodding my head in agreement until you added that last, which is another example of how percentages can be very misleading.
The way that Canaccord Genuity includes negative "profits" to come up with Apple and Samsung making "107%" of industry profit, is just goofy reporter math. If RIM or Microsoft loses a little more money, then suddenly Apple can "reap 100%" or more, without even selling more phones.
Heck, if Microsoft loses a lot of money, then BOTH Apple and Samsung could be over 100% each. It might make junior website math sense, but it sure doesn't make common sense.
As many have noted, it would be better reported that Moto, RIM, LG and Sony shared X billion in losses, while Apple got 55% - 75% of the actual industry profits. (I've only had time to do rough math.)
Here you are making a mistake: You seem to assume that Samsung is one homogenous company. But they have divisions with widely different strategies and goals.
Two of the larger divisions are the semiconductor division, which develops, builds and sells things like CPUs, RAM, flash drives and so on. That division is among others a large supplier to Apple, and makes money from every iPhone sold. Totally separate is the mobile division, that is the guys making and selling phones and tablets.
The mobile division used to have huge sales and profits and used to dwarf the semiconductor division. That has changed. Samsung semiconductor has been growing, in part due to sales to Apple, while Samsung mobile has been shrinking, and is now the smaller division by revenue and the much smaller division by profit.
In other words, the ability to supply competently designed parts for Apple doesn't indicate anything about Samsung's ability to design phones that sell. Totally independent.
The numbers reported were Apple = 92%, Samsung = 15%. If we assume that nobody else makes money, and if you want to keep profits and losses separate, that would make Apple = 86% and Samsung = 14%. (If anyone else makes profits, that would make the losses of the others even bigger).
Last edited:
I've always wondered how these analysts get these numbers.
There are hundreds of companies who make up the smartphone market. It's more than just the handful we usually talk about.
So are these analysts gathering hundreds of quarterly results including all those no-name companies in China and India?
They would have to, right? If they're gonna make the claim that a company has X% profit in a market... they have to know how much money the entire market makes and loses.
Damn... that's gotta be a hell of a job. I'm sure a lot of those "other" companies don't have PR departments!
For now...imagine how bad it will be if they get one release slightly wrong.
I'm pretty sure Samsung didn't get their curved display innovation from Apple. I applaud Samsung for always trying new ideas. It's exciting for consumers or else this industry would be boring.Actually Samsung's innovation largely depends on Apple's innovation.
Durn
I was nodding my head in agreement until you added that last, which is another example of how percentages can be very misleading.
The way that Canaccord Genuity includes negative "profits" to come up with Apple and Samsung making "107%" of industry profit, is just goofy reporter math. If RIM or Microsoft loses a little more money, then suddenly Apple can "reap 100%" or more, without even selling more phones.
Heck, if Microsoft loses a lot of money, then BOTH Apple and Samsung could be over 100% each. It might make junior website math sense, but it sure doesn't make common sense.
As many have noted, it would be better reported that Moto, RIM, LG and Sony shared X billion in losses, while Apple got 55% - 75% of the actual industry profits. (I've only had time to do rough math.)
Another way of adding (some) relevance to a first order approximation of smartphone profits, and neglecting the losers, is to compare Apple's dominating share of 92% to Samsung's 15% share. It is still unknown how the losses of the other companies could reduce Samsung's share, as well. Eyeballing the profit vs oem chart, the losses sustained by others in comparison appear to be mice nuts.
I didn't make that assumption nor does my argument rest on it. Samsung has the most technically advanced phone and as a component supplier they are top rate. They can improve, but to say one of the two most dominant firms is failing and lacks the ability to compete is nonsensical at this point in time.
And if you really want to push the issue, it doesn't matter if their capabilities are in different divisions. It's not the like the divisional structures are dictated by God. If it serves their interest, management can always reorg such that they can drive new forms of competitive advantage.
Last edited:
They are more or less the same in that they all run some version of Android. But there is lots of choice among the different brands.
There were over 280 million Android phones shipped last quarter... but only 73 million of them were made by Samsung.
Clearly more people are choosing non-Samsung Android phones.
I think Apple hugely benefited from the fact when the iPhone 6 and 6+ came out, it satiated a HUGE, pent-up demand for a larger-screen iPhone (why do you think Apple sold 74 million iPhone 6 models in the October to December 20014 quarter?). It'll be interesting to see well Apple does with the iPhone 6s and 6s+ models when they arrive in late September 2015 (as usual).
I own a Sony Xperia Z3 Compact. It's waterproof, dustproof, small, has a microSD slot and a battery that lasts 36-72 hours on single charge depending on how much you use it. Owning Galaxy S III dragged me through pits of hell and I am not giving Samsung another chance no matter how edgy (I'm so funny) they get, not to mention S6 is not waterproof, not dustproof, not small and has no microSD slot, but on the plus side it's more expensive.
Yea, touchwiz is a turd that a 3 year old crapped out. The Edge thing is a ridiculously pointless gimmick that no-one can seriously justify.
If I were to go back to Android, probably would go with HTC.