Nice to put your ego on hold for a bit and admit someone else is right for a change. Is nice to hear from you. Is also the first time I've ever read it from you. Hope it happens again.
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 Reveal U.S. Mobile Device Sales in Court Case
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nice to put your ego on hold for a bit and admit someone else is right for a change. Is nice to hear from you. Is also the first time I've ever read it from you. Hope it happens again.
Despite popular belief - he wasn't above the court
No, but knowing Steve, he would probably have found a way to weasel out of it somehow, just like he did with Antennaegate (recontextualise the problem so it now becomes an issue with all handphones, not just iphones).
No, but knowing Steve, he would probably have found a way to weasel out of it somehow, just like he did with Antennaegate (recontextualise the problem so it now becomes an issue with all handphones, not just iphones).
I'm certain he would not be able to weasel out of a court order.
I want to go after those ppl who said Samsung sold more phones than Apple does. Hey, look at this info. You know who is the boss here.
You don't even need sales #s, go straight to profits & see how Apple demolishes Samsung.
Wait, you're saying Apple lies to shareholers and that the 3GS is the biggest seller in the iPhone models and that's why they don't break down sales, so we won't find out ?
Come on, Apple nor anyone in this industry "lies". There is no conspiracy behind not reporting your unit sales.
----------
Another one who thinks Apple lies.
I guess the sarcasm wasn't thick enough in my post.
----------
Then please do. Of course, looking at this info paints quite the incomplete picture. What is the basis of comparison ? Those people were talking about worldwide sales for all Samsung smartphones, these numbers are US sales for a subset of handsets included in the Apple lawsuit.
Incomplete data is incomplete. Drawing conclusions from incomplete data... well...
It is. But I'm not under oath, am I?
Just curious. Is it "lying" to act as a lawyer in a court district when you are not yet allowed to practice law in that district? Susan Estrich, toiling away on the Samsung legal team, did exactly that.
Is that a lie? Or is it just another major Samsung Oopsie?
Last edited:
Well, there is a big difference between not breaking down sales by different models and not talking about even a grand total. Samsung does not report its smartphone sales, not by revenue nor by units. Not even the worldwide number. Public companies usually try to shout evidence of their success as loudly as possible. However, in Asia many large companies are controlled by families or groups despite not holding the majority of the shares with quite cozy relations with regulators and politicians. In such situations, the insiders do not feel the need to prove their success to outsiders. Different motivations result in different behaviors. It just makes life more difficult for analysts and suppliers trying to forecast sales and allocate resources.
Uh ? They do breakdown revenues for their mobile devisions which includes revenues for handsets, and break it down further to mobile :
http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsams...se/downloads/2012/20120727_conference_eng.pdf
They explain what IM and Mobile includes :
Again, there is no conspiracy here. These are the rules of earnings reports. Lying on an earnings report or about your business gets you in major trouble with the SEC.
If you want to say there is, you have to accept that Apple also has something to hide by not breaking sales to models. You can't have it both ways, it's either they all lie or no one lies and people are just reading too much into it.
I'm in the camp that thinks Apple doesn't lie and that Samsung doesn't lie and that the numbers we're getting are accurate. There is no reason to doubt them, on either side of the fence.
Libel has nothing to do with being under oath or not. Accusing someone of perjury is serious. If you have no evidence to back up your statements, I would suggest to stick to the facts rather than inventing things to make one side look bad.
The lawyer in question explained she thought she was registered to practice in the Northern District of California, when it fact her registration was for the Central District of California. It's not like she was only registered in New York or something (even though that's what most pro-Apple news source want you to think).
It's also something that's moot now, as she has had her registration done and the last time she did work for Samsung, she was fully registered and allowed by the bar association of the Northern District of California.
And that's not a "major Samsung Oopsie", it's a major Quinn and associates oopsie, and the judge will decide if it matters or not in the end and will give the jury proper instruction about it.
The question is, "big difference" to whom? Investors mostly worry more about profits and inventory reserve, than about details as to which models sold best.
At least, I don't recall anyone asking Apple at an earnings call about model breakdown, or even about sales totals for refurbs etc. (Something I'm curious about.)
Samsung announces total handset revenue, although like Apple, they don't break it down by model.
As for device quantities, Samsung only tried reporting those for a few recent years and then got burned when the tablet numbers didn't work out that one time. So it's understandable that they went back to being secretive.
However, Samsung does announce milestones in its top models, such as when the Galaxy S3 hit 5 and then 10 million sales. The same when the Note hit 5 million.
The Google lie
I am working for a cooperate that runs several retail business around the world, mainly in Europe. Aside of developing iOS Apps for the customers of our different brands and iPad App/Tools for internal use, I am collecting and compiling the key figures for all Apps we have. Our department also develops the retail apps for Android. We don't use any Android Pads in the cooperate btw.
All our Apps are free and offer additional services to the customers at no extra costs. Of course is the usage monitored with services like Flurry and other services, we developed ourself. We have a high acceptance along our apps among the iOS devices.
As for Android, none of our Android Apps has any significant usage. Wasted money.
If you hear Google in each their speeches somewhere, they brag with their 1 m activation per day. Cool, sounds like 1 m new Android users each day, right?
Oddly, none of then is using any of our apps. We never saw any proof or sign at least, showing that the Android is market larger then the iPhone market. From our view, there is no way that Android is the most used Smartphone platform.
And now we get finally the proof.
Apple sold way over 85 m devices. Samsung, being the strongest branch in the Android market, sold just over 21 m. How can Android be the most used Smartphone OS? To reach Apple, all the smaller crap companies like HTC need to have sold 60m+. Where? When? And where are those devices, since I hardly see any other the Samsung.
It is obvious, Google lies.
A well known German Reichskanzler is known for the quote, that the mass of folks rather fall for a big lie then a small.
That is what is happening in the Android market. If you tell people a lie often enough, they tend to believe it and if all goes well, making the lie true.
I dont know where those 1m activations come from, if they are true. But judging by the amount of bricks the Android team produced in their debugging sessions, I could imagine the figure Google uses for their lie, comes a good portion from Developers around the world. Mainly Asia.
After all, most Android devices run Android 2, so you have to flash several devices to test all that different screens and os types. Of course you produce bricks that way and it is not done with just one debugging round. Another money bin, which does not exist in the iOS domain I may add.
Thats my two cents on those figures. Your mileage/interpretation may vary.
I am working for a cooperate that runs several retail business around the world, mainly in Europe. Aside of developing iOS Apps for the customers of our different brands and iPad App/Tools for internal use, I am collecting and compiling the key figures for all Apps we have. Our department also develops the retail apps for Android. We don't use any Android Pads in the cooperate btw.
All our Apps are free and offer additional services to the customers at no extra costs. Of course is the usage monitored with services like Flurry and other services, we developed ourself. We have a high acceptance along our apps among the iOS devices.
As for Android, none of our Android Apps has any significant usage. Wasted money.
If you hear Google in each their speeches somewhere, they brag with their 1 m activation per day. Cool, sounds like 1 m new Android users each day, right?
Oddly, none of then is using any of our apps. We never saw any proof or sign at least, showing that the Android is market larger then the iPhone market. From our view, there is no way that Android is the most used Smartphone platform.
And now we get finally the proof.
Apple sold way over 85 m devices. Samsung, being the strongest branch in the Android market, sold just over 21 m. How can Android be the most used Smartphone OS? To reach Apple, all the smaller crap companies like HTC need to have sold 60m+. Where? When? And where are those devices, since I hardly see any other the Samsung.
It is obvious, Google lies.
A well known German Reichskanzler is known for the quote, that the mass of folks rather fall for a big lie then a small.
That is what is happening in the Android market. If you tell people a lie often enough, they tend to believe it and if all goes well, making the lie true.
I dont know where those 1m activations come from, if they are true. But judging by the amount of bricks the Android team produced in their debugging sessions, I could imagine the figure Google uses for their lie, comes a good portion from Developers around the world. Mainly Asia.
After all, most Android devices run Android 2, so you have to flash several devices to test all that different screens and os types. Of course you produce bricks that way and it is not done with just one debugging round. Another money bin, which does not exist in the iOS domain I may add.
Thats my two cents on those figures. Your mileage/interpretation may vary.
You don't need to flash anything to test profram, what the heck are you talking about?
And, by the way, Google doesn't count reflashed handsets as activations.
If you don't see the difference between a lack of breakdown between 3GS/4/4S and smartphones/voice-phones, you are either a lousy investor or you are being obtuse on purpose.
Where is this proof you speak of ? Surely not the document in question which only contains partial information.
Dude, calm down. What are you getting so riled up about? I never said "lie" or "conspiracy". How can it be a lie if Samsung does not comment on something in the first place? (I don't see a number in the picture you posted, do you?) There are no SEC rules about how to report phone sales, as long as whatever you chose to report is true. You can hide anything you want, as long as you eventually add up your profits, revenues, assets etc truthfully. I just tried to explain how motivations of one set of companies or executives are not the same for another and how they lead one group to provide numbers (Apple, Nokia etc.), while leading others to bury them combined with other categories.
What does it matter ? If Apple had "voice-phones", would they break it down ?
To investors, it's revenues vs profits that matter, not actual breakdown of what phone that supports e-mail and which one doesn't and how much each sold. That's just things for forum goers to argue.
How is this proof of google's lying rather than your company's failure to design an appealing app for Android users?
Read, don't just look at the pictures. The picture was the breakdown for IM, since the numbers are listed next to just plain IM in the tables with revenues and profit.
If I had just posted the numbers, you'd have argued that IM meant more than it was, thus I showed that later on, they tell you exactly what it stands for.
Guess I need to also post the numbers as a picture ? I gave the link, the decency would have been to click on it and read it before responding.
That's what I mean by conspiracy. You want to see motivations where there are simply none. Samsung reports revenue/profit by handset because that's what they need to do, Apple thrives on reporting units sold and is happy about it.
There is no ulterior motive to any of these corporations and their earnings reports. There is nothing to hide like you and others keep saying.
----------
That I'll agree with you 100%. That poster has no proof of his great "Android lie".
We'll never know, will we? Nokia has voice-phones and I believe it does break it down, so was Motorola before it got acquired.
To investors, today's profits and revenues may not matter as much as what is coming down the pike. They all know the future belongs to smartphones, so they want to know how effectively a company is able to switch from generating voice phone sales to smartphone sales. You can take two phone manufacturers and both can make the same amount of revenue and profits, but if one is getting all of its sales from smartphones and the other from voice phones, the share price of the former will be higher, while journalists will be writing obituaries of the latter. If the companies themselves do not disclose any details, then investors, suppliers and partners will buy the estimated data from market research companies.
However, the third party numbers are less likely to be exact, so there is uncertainty. Successful public companies try to lift the fog of uncertainty to raise their share prices, reduce their interests rates or to gather more partners. Troubled ones may prefer to hide behind it. Companies controlled by a small network of shareholders do not need to pump up the share price, so keeping data wrapped up can work to their advantage for competitive reasons. It all depends on what the executives and shareholders are trying to achieve.
----------
Do you know the difference between "motivation" and "ulterior motive"?
If you don't disclose something, by definition you are hiding it. All companies disclose very little compared to the mountains of data they have about their businesses, but they hide most of that for various reasons. None of that is coincidental though. There are always reasons behind what they disclose and what they hide. Some have to be disclosed by law, some are disclosed because it is good for business and some get disclosed because it is good for executive compensation. To better interpret what little information that gets to quarterly reports, you gotta understand the motivations that lie behind.
what do your apps do? did you guys research if there were apps already in android that do that already? were those apps lacking features your app could bring? does your app on ios do something that android does natively? there is lots of reasons your apps dont get used.