Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
If you look at the numbers, it's not even close. Sure Sammy is catching up, but the gap is still very wide. Apple sold 48 million iPhones last quarter. Sammy sold about 60 million smartphones in the same period.

Apple chooses to produce only high-end phones, with older models filling in the low end. Samsung produces several high end models plus they also have older models serving the low end. They also produce low end models as new, too.

Liking at just the high end models, lets assume that 80% of Apple's number are iphone5. That gives you 38 million high end iPhones for the quarter. In comparison, Samsung was estimated to have sold only 22 million Galaxy S3 and Note 2 phones.

So in the segment that Apple is competing in, they're still way out in front.

Samsung is doing well, but there strategy is different than Apple's. We'll get a truer comparison between the two if/when Apple chooses to go after the low end market.

When do you expect for headlines to say that the i5 takes the crown for most sold phone? My cousin who is a annoying Android fanatic keeps talking ish saying the" S3 is the most sold phone in the world" because of quarter 3 were the S3 barely outsold the 4S
 
From a company that never made a phone until six years ago

Not an accomplishment to be ashamed of.

The Important figure here is the YOY growth for Apple and the lack of said growth for Samsung. It also should be mentioned that Apple only has 3 phones for sale, while Samsung has like ~10x that amount on the market.

you're disregarding the fact that if a person wants iOS, they only have one choice, Apple. If a person wants Android, they have the option of Samsung, Motorola, HTC, Sony, LG, etc. So for you to argue about the discrepancy of models offered by each company is a moot point.

There really are two distinct comparisons here: iOS vs Android sales and APPLE vs SAMSUNG sales, and since the latter is what the article is about, iScott428 has a valid point. It should also be noted that those Strategy Analytics numbers are shipments rather than sales.

SAMSUNG does not publish actual sales figures, so for this latest quarter, APPLE could possibly be even further ahead, but as has been noted by other posters, when one of them releases a new flagship phone, naturally that will be reflected in the upcoming quarter's totals.
 
you're disregarding the fact that if a person wants iOS, they only have one choice, Apple. If a person wants Android, they have the option of Samsung, Motorola, HTC, Sony, LG, etc. So for you to argue about the discrepancy of models offered by each company is a moot point.

People, I mean normal, non techie people, don't "want iOS" or "want Android". They want a smartphone.
 
You don't seem to understand business very well. Without profits and marketshare, you won't have great design and polished innovation. A company without marketshare and profits is a dead company.

Lose "marketshare" and that statement is correct. History is full of companies with high or even dominating market share that were losing money. Look at the history of General Motors.

Seems to me, based on what I've read, Apple's pretty profitable.

----------

Does any other country really count :D.

USA, centre of the Universe...

...sigh.
 
How dumb. "We estimate that Apple shipped..."

Apple GIVES SALES FIGURES EVERY QUARTER. No estimating of SHIPMENTS necessary unlike all other manufacturers.
 
What a surprise! The Android hype is finally dying! I really don't understand why people want companies to die so badly.
 
And on the internet I've often have people ask what state I live in - Assuming that one could only reside within one of the fifty great states :D

I havent even found one great state yet...

Anyway what are you doing online? Shouldnt you be drunk at the cake tin?..
 
Yes. But here in US - where it's not the norm - I do wonder what would/will happen if subsidies are stopped.

People already consider 200-300 a lot to spend on a phone. Will they really pay more - and upgrade as often. Or will lower cost phones prevail. I'm inclined to think there is a decent base of iPhone customers that wouldn't be if they had to pay full price (same for S3, etc). Only difference is - you can't get a cheaper iPhone. You can get cheaper windows/android phones...

But even with subsidies, you still pay for the whole phone. The cell carrier gets the money back through the contract you're stuck in for 2-3 years. They don't lose money on subsidizing these phones. This is why you pay the big fees if you cancel early.

Subsidy or no, the latest, fully loaded iPhone costs around $900. If you get a brand-new fully loaded phone with a contract you pay $300-400 and are locked into the company for 2-3 years where they essentially overcharge you enough over that time to pay the difference. Ultimately you pay for the phone in full eventually. How much is the latest Blackberry? Their talking approx $200 with a contract. So one might think an unlocked BB would be $800ish?

If the Europeans aren't getting phones subsidized by their carrier, then I would assume they're paying around $20 less per month than they would be if they were subsidized. $20 X 24 months = $480...

The only way subsidies should make a difference is the upfront costs should be less and monthly costs more.
 
This is actually a big deal because Apple has never been the #1 smartphone vendor in the US. Samsung has held that title since 2008, according to Electronista. This pretty much proves that the loss of value in Apple's stock has absolutely no relationship to market realities.
 
And everyone knows New Zealand is deep within the heart of China, right? I bet they were pulling your leg. ;)

No, no, no-one could pull off the look of their faces when i said it was on the the otherside of the world if they were joking.... It was like i was a martian...

God bless america :)

----------

But even with subsidies, you still pay for the whole phone. The cell carrier gets the money back through the contract you're stuck in for 2-3 years. They don't lose money on subsidizing these phones. This is why you pay the big fees if you cancel early.

Subsidy or no, the latest, fully loaded iPhone costs around $900. If you get a brand-new fully loaded phone with a contract you pay $300-400 and are locked into the company for 2-3 years where they essentially overcharge you enough over that time to pay the difference. Ultimately you pay for the phone in full eventually. How much is the latest Blackberry? Their talking approx $200 with a contract. So one might think an unlocked BB would be $800ish?

If the Europeans aren't getting phones subsidized by their carrier, then I would assume they're paying around $20 less per month than they would be if they were subsidized. $20 X 24 months = $480...

The only way subsidies should make a difference is the upfront costs should be less and monthly costs more.

Have u ever lived in europe? You will get your phone for FREE* and less per month

God bless america
 
Just pointing out that Apple took the lead for the last quarter most likely due to the timing of the release of the Iphone 5. Samsung was still significantly ahead for the entire year. The title of this article is a bit misleading and reads as though this is some sort of mega competition ala Super Bowl.

Plus Samsung still has a bigger marketshare.
 
Apple continues to impress with their results despite only having 2 phones (well, three) on the market.

However, I believe that they no longer need to keep the "1 phone to rule them all" mindset anymore. As someone else pointed out, they have enough cash and established presence in the marketplace that they could expand their lineup without an adverse impact to their core value of simplicity.

Every other Apple product does like this; they should officially play in all spaces within the marketplace.

Apple already have this capability, they just need to implement it:

Build an iPhone 3GS-type with retina and iphone 4s internals

Maintain the iPhone5 factor, while upgrading internals per the normal cycle

Release the iPhone+ with identical internals and upgrade cycle to iPhone5, but with a larger screen to address size-queen customers (like me & some Android users).

Consolidate design languages between iOS devices so as to minimize R&D requirements. (Just like their notebook lines).

3 Phones (well, each black & white) = GROWTH without sacrificing Apple's trademark simplicity and quality.

I said it before and I'll say it again, the greatest growth opportunity will come from Apple targeting a different type of customer (outside of the single marketplace they play in now).

So first you acknowlegde that apple is at it's best now with the mindset they had for the past years, but it's a good idea to switch it up now. Your logic is so flawed. If this is what's working for them for the past year, it seems like a good reason to KEEP this 1 phone to dominate them all mind-set. Why change what's working.
 
The carriers aren't going to work that way in the US. They don't now. Whether you are in a contract or out (except for t-mobile) you pay the same rate. Which is why it does make sense to upgrade every chance you get assuming you're OK with your carrier.

If subsidies stop - there's absolutely no guarantee/nor is it likely that rates will go DOWN. If you bring an unlocked phone to ATT now - you still pay the higher rate.

No - more than likely what will happen is they will drop subsidies and call it a day.

But even with subsidies, you still pay for the whole phone. The cell carrier gets the money back through the contract you're stuck in for 2-3 years. They don't lose money on subsidizing these phones. This is why you pay the big fees if you cancel early.

Subsidy or no, the latest, fully loaded iPhone costs around $900. If you get a brand-new fully loaded phone with a contract you pay $300-400 and are locked into the company for 2-3 years where they essentially overcharge you enough over that time to pay the difference. Ultimately you pay for the phone in full eventually. How much is the latest Blackberry? Their talking approx $200 with a contract. So one might think an unlocked BB would be $800ish?

If the Europeans aren't getting phones subsidized by their carrier, then I would assume they're paying around $20 less per month than they would be if they were subsidized. $20 X 24 months = $480...

The only way subsidies should make a difference is the upfront costs should be less and monthly costs more.
 
Just pointing out that Apple took the lead for the last quarter most likely due to the timing of the release of the Iphone 5. Samsung was still significantly ahead for the entire year. The title of this article is a bit misleading and reads as though this is some sort of mega competition ala Super Bowl.

True - the title is misleading. But the fact that Apple's iPhone shipments went up by 14 mil from 2011-2012, while Samsung's phone shipments only increased by 700k is quite significant.
 
Sometimes I wonder if being an analyst consists of owning a random number generator. Not saying the report is inaccurate, but how exactly do they come up with these numbers?

I have to wonder too. Maybe they just ask each company for its sales numbers.

----------

I'll take that improvement over thinner and lighter...

I won't. I'm worried about power consumption.
 
The people on this site fall to realize that it's ultimately Apple vs Android; not Apple vs Samsung. As a Android user I want HTC, Motorola, Sony and LG to step up their games. You always want to have a fall back plan and relying on one company (Samsung) to take share away from Apple is a mistake. I'd rather have multiple choices throughout the year than only one model that may or may not meet my expectations.
Apple could be the number one smartphone maker every month but it means nothing when you have 4 or 5 Android OEM's sharing a combined total of 70% of the market. At the end of the day Apple will be a small piece of the smartphone pie. And the same is going to happen to the iPad. You Apple users should be very scared if Apple continues their "S" model tradition. It's not enough against Samsung and sure as hell not enough against Android.
 
This is actually a big deal because Apple has never been the #1 smartphone vendor in the US. Samsung has held that title since 2008, according to Electronista. This pretty much proves that the loss of value in Apple's stock has absolutely no relationship to market realities.

I can't stand the myopia around here. The US is not the centre of the universe, there are other countries out there and in pretty much every other one, Apple is only a bit player and it's market share has been tanking dramatically.
 
The people on this site fall to realize that it's ultimately Apple vs Android; not Apple vs Samsung. As a Android user I want HTC, Motorola, Sony and LG to step up their games. You always want to have a fall back plan and relying on one company (Samsung) to take share away from Apple is a mistake. I'd rather have multiple choices throughout the year than only one model that may or may not meet my expectations.
Apple could be the number one smartphone maker every month but it means nothing when you have 4 or 5 Android OEM's sharing a combined total of 70% of the market. At the end of the day Apple will be a small piece of the smartphone pie. And the same is going to happen to the iPad. You Apple users should be very scared if Apple continues their "S" model tradition. It's not enough against Samsung and sure as hell not enough against Android.

Seems odd that with 4 or 5 OEMS sharing a 70-80% market share that Apple is the one taking in 70% of the profits. Seems their business model is doing pretty well. I can sell something all day long for cheap but if I'm not making money at it it's just a waste. While Android makers continue to throw handsets out daily and see what sticks they're losing their ass on the bottom line. Samsung is the only one making a profit on that side. And even when they seem to have out sold Apple they still haven't come close to the share of profits apple is taking in.
 
Interesting. But could this be the last quarter that Apple is the number one seller for either mobile or smartphone category in America?
 
The rapid growth of iPhone (smartphones in general) in the US is phoney. It is merely fuelled by perpetual subsidization. Subsidization from overpaid phone plans and from the customers who choose not to upgrade their phones.

The US runs on subsidized capitalism, subsidised smartphones, farming, banking, housing ... , you name it.
 
There was a time when every insecure Android user was telling all their less tech savvy friends that Android is the best despite it being garbage in comparison and we were seeing a huge tidal wave of shoddy phones dominate the market by sheer cheapness and anti-appleness.

But now those days are over because the friends are all slowly starting to realize that their friends were lying to them and that iPhones are in fact the most delicious phone experience you can have and they all eventually switched en-masse.

Of course there are still many on the Android side buy that is an element that accounts for the continued growth spikes and the millions of new iPhone users.

They cant be fooled forever and the quality and smoothness shone through all the hatred.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.