iPhone 4S Closes Sales Gap on Android as Apple Sweeps Top Three Smartphone Models

Avalontor

macrumors regular
Apr 14, 2010
175
12
Then why exactly does Samsung have 22 different cell phones they're currently selling?

Where is there a guide telling me what phone is a better fit for my needs?
pretty sad you would need a guide to tell you what phone is a better fit for YOUR needs.
 

jeremyshaw

macrumors 6502
Oct 29, 2011
340
0
An iPhone 4 or 4S, yes. A 3GS, I don't think so.

----------



So you agree that people buy the 3GS just to have an iPhone, not because it is one of the top phones.
Or because it's dirt cheap on contract.... aka the Real World Primary Smartphone Battle Ground (or so I have been led to believe :p).
 

kdarling

macrumors P6
That's a bit of a distortion, Ken.
My name is not Ken :)

What the numbers say is that the iPhone 3G (free), the iPhone 4 ($99 for 8GB model), and the iPhone 4S ($199 for 16GB model) are all more attractive than any model from any other manufacturer.
It was expected that the 4S had sold well, since it was a long-awaited upgrade... in fact, the ONLY upgrade available from Apple for over a year. It's one way to guarantee a sales spike in one quarter per year.

As everyone points out, the numbers in this chart are for individual models, of which Apple has fewer than anyone else and which are used across multiple carriers. So it's no surprise that Apple's few models would score high on a chart arranged to highlight such things. Lump just the Galaxies together and the chart would be different. (*)

Heck, the iPhone 4 and 3GS were also at the top of the same USA chart the previous quarter, yet Samsung overall sold more smartphones during that period than Apple. Individual model charts are interesting (**), but ultimately meaningless when it comes to total market share.

Personally, I'm glad to see most makers doing well, or at least okay. Even Motorola is back in the black.

(*) Or, for instance, a chart divided by $200, $100, $50, and $1-10 price ranges. Does the 3GS outsell all the other individual under $10 phones? That would be more telling.

(**) And without broken out sales numbers, not even that interesting.
 
Last edited:

spazzcat

macrumors 68030
Jun 29, 2007
2,639
1,422
You're missing the forest for the trees. The main point was to suggest that multiple models of a product does not suggest a lack of confidence on the company's part.
I get that, but the argument was that coming out with a new version every other month or so could suggest a lack of confidence...
 

FloatingBones

macrumors 65816
Jul 19, 2006
1,275
280
Is it too much to ask people to put aside their love for Apple or hate for other companies and just think a little logically for a bit?
Your rhetoric is nonsensical. I cannot think of a logical reason why customers would need 22 different Samsung models of cell phone. I asked where the logical explanation -- the guide -- existed for telling me which phone would be right for my needs. As far as I can tell, neither Samsung nor AT&T provides any such guide. Please. It's not "love" or "hate" of any company to point out that 22 different models with no guidance is confusing!

A different way of asking the question: how many different cell phone models would Samsung have to have before you would proclaim that the product spread was confusing?

There may be 22 different phones (on AT&T's website I see only 14 for purchase)
If you go to http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/at-t, you'll see the 22 different models. Here's the list -- in the order that Samsung has them listed on their webpage:

(1) Galaxy S™ II, (2) Focus™ S Windows Smartphone, (3) Focus™ Flash Windows Smartphone, (4) Galaxy S™ II Skyrocket™, (5) DoubleTime™ Android Smartphone, (6) Infuse™ 4G Smartphone, (7) Captivate™ Android Smartphone, (8) Nexus S from Google, (9) Captivate™ Glide Android Smartphone, (10) a197 Cell Phone, (11) Mythic™ Touchscreen Cell Phone, (12) Sunburst™ Touchscreen Cell Phone, (13) Strive™ Qwerty Cell Phone, (14) Rugby™ ll Cell Phone, (15) Flight™ II QWERTY Cell Phone, (16) Eternity® II Touchscreen Cell Phone, (17) a187 Cell Phone, (18) Sunburst™ Touchscreen Cell Phone, (19) a107 Cell Phone, (20) Samsung Solstice II Touchscreen Cell Phone, (21) Evergreen™ QWERTY Cell Phone, (22) Focus™ Windows Smartphone.

Where are you getting your list of 14 models from?

but they're aimed for different target markets.
Of course they're aimed for different target markets. Otherwise, it would just be the equivalent of throwing a bunch of cooked spaghetti against the wall and seeing what would stick.

The question I asked: where exactly is the guide telling me which phones would fit my needs?

Then among the smartphones, you have Android, Windows, and other OS phones. Again, it's for different target markets. Some are older generation phones to sell to more budget conscious customers. Others are newer to appeal to those who want the newest technology. And still others are designed to appeal to specific groups of people (touchscreen + physical keyboard, military specifications).
I certainly agree that some specific guidelines could exist for what model existed for what purpose. But vague generalizations over what those guidelines could say is not the same as actually producing the guidelines.

AFAICT, ten of the models are smartphones: 1-9 and 22 listed above. What purpose does which phone serve.

Some are designed for prepaid use (which again ranges from dumbphones to touchscreen devices) while others are designed to be used with a plan. Need I go on?
No purpose is served by generalized hand-waving about the reason for the 22 models. If that's all you're going to do, you should stop.

It's a common business method... diversification and targeted marketing.
You keep repeating the conjecture that there is targeted marketing. But you fail to produce any evidence of the actual targeting.

Did you chase the link I provided in this message showing that Apple is grabbing the majority of the profits in smartphones while Samsung and others are scrambling for the scraps? Why do you think that is happening?

It has nothing to do with confidence of one's product. Apple even used it for other products (such as when they sold their MacBook, MBP, and MBA lines simultaneously...they didn't lack confidence in their notebooks right?).
Funny you should mention that. Apple does provide a clear guideline for their five different computer product lines. From that page, here are the five different one-liners for the lines:
  • MacBook Air: The ultimate everyday laptop.
  • MacBook Pro: Our most advanced notebooks.
  • iMac: The ultimate all-in-one computer.
  • Mac Mini: A lot of computer in a little space.
  • Mac Pro: The fastest, most powerful Mac ever.
The top of the page shows the first decision users should make: notebook or desktop computer? Notebook users then decide: do they need an everyday notebook, or do they need advanced functionality. The decision for desktop users: do they want an all-in-one machine, or a tiny one with a choice of display? Folks who need a Mac Pro know who they are. :cool:

Apple's computer-selection page is a textbook example of how to guide customers through a variety of products. My point is simple: I see no such clear guidance for selecting a Samsung cell phone.

And most people already know what their needs and wants are.
That is your conjecture. You still haven't told any of the specifics. Did you select a Samsung phone? If so, what are your needs? Where did you go to see which of the 22 (or maybe 10) of Samsung's phones met your needs?

Unless you can answer that last question, your response is a No Pass.

It's not too hard to look at the various models and read the descriptions in the store. And if not, that's what the employees are for.
The danger with asking employees is that they may be influenced by the kickbacks that they get for steering a customer to a particular model. Either Samsung publishes a guideline for navigating through their models or they do not. Which is it?
 

kdarling

macrumors P6
Your rhetoric is nonsensical. I cannot think of a logical reason why customers would need 22 different Samsung models of cell phone.
It's a really good thing that Apple exists for people who cannot figure out what they need on their own!

Carriers don't sell all the models you're talking about, and most Americans buy devices from the carrier they use.

Looking at Verizon's website, I only see four new Samsung smartphones for sale. A few quick clicks and their website gives me a comparison chart, where it's easy to compare prices vs memory vs camera resolution vs 3G/LTE, etc.

Did you chase the link I provided in this message showing that Apple is grabbing the majority of the profits in smartphones while Samsung and others are scrambling for the scraps? Why do you think that is happening?
Those charts show relative profits multiplied by number of devices sold, not the per device profit.

However, it's well known that Apple gets about 50% profit per unit vs the 30-35% that others get. Absolutely that's a benefit they get for being popular and buying a lot of the same parts in quantity by having few models. Is that what you mean? It's a great position to be in.

At the same time, Samsung has been making record operating profits from its smartphone sales the past few quarters, so it's not hurting at all. It's
even taking Nokia's place as the world's top smartphone seller.

Partly because of their huge profit margin, Apple has skipped over markets like India where a billion people cannot afford to buy an iPhone. Those are the types of markets where having multiple models really help in the short and long term. People can start cheap and work their way up with brand loyalty.
 

danahn17

macrumors 6502
Dec 3, 2009
384
0
It's not "love" or "hate" of any company to point out that 22 different models with no guidance is confusing!

A different way of asking the question: how many different cell phone models would Samsung have to have before you would proclaim that the product spread was confusing?
Seriously. People aren't stupid enough that they need guides for everything because it gets confusing. If you think 22 is bad, take a look at Fender Guitar's website. They have 121 different guitar models and no guides (http://bit.ly/yxkM7j). If you go to a guitar store, they just hang a bunch of guitars on the wall (from multiple companies) and you're supposed to pick what you want. No guides. How do musicians manage?

Where are you getting your list of 14 models from?

The question I asked: where exactly is the guide telling me which phones would fit my needs?
I got it from AT&T's website, which incidentally lets you compare cellphones and filter based upon certain criteria: http://bit.ly/whL4X7

You keep repeating the conjecture that there is targeted marketing. But you fail to produce any evidence of the actual targeting.
You admitted as much too: "Of course they're aimed for different target markets." So... okay.

But when you see Samsung ads, they're made for certain groups of people--its targeted. Take the "Next Big Thing" commerical. It's saying the Galaxy SII is better than the iPhone and is therefore positioning the SII as a competitor. It's clearly targeting potential iPhone buyers. And while they're making fun of the die-hard fans who wait in line, the ad is targeted towards more everyday users, not the fanboys and early adopters.

Plus Samsung is a big and successful company. I'm sure the execs have gone to business school and learned of these things. I'm sure they hire marketing people who do the same. Positioning and target markets are things they teach you in a college Marketing 101 course. So of course they're going to be targeting... they're not making 22 models for fun.

Now whether or not it's an effective strategy can be another story/debate...

That is your conjecture. You still haven't told any of the specifics. Did you select a Samsung phone? If so, what are your needs? Where did you go to see which of the 22 (or maybe 10) of Samsung's phones met your needs?

Unless you can answer that last question, your response is a No Pass.
Whether or not I bought a Samsung phone and what my needs are irrelevent to this discussion. What my needs are may not be what yours are. So why bring it up?

Most people go to the carrier store to buy their cellphone... you can usually try out the phones there too and the prices and the features.

At any rate, you're changing the goalposts. My original assertion was simply that multiple models do not suggest a lack of confidence in one's product. I later added that theres different models to appeal to different demographics, not because Samsung lacks confidence. Somehow the rebuttal has turned into "tell me why Samsung needs to put out 22 models without a guide for users?"
 

BaldiMac

macrumors 604
Jan 24, 2008
7,410
7,238
Individual model charts are interesting (**), but ultimately meaningless when it comes to total market share.
Conversely, individual model charts actually have more meaning in this market than total market share.

There are actual, practical advantages to have the top individual model. Predominantly, third party accessory support.

The total market share lead has been pretty meaningless so far. Seeing as Apple is enjoying all the practical advantages of being the market share leader, even though they are not.
 

FloatingBones

macrumors 65816
Jul 19, 2006
1,275
280
My name is not Ken :)
Apologies. But your message

Yes, among other things it says that 99 cents is a very attractive price for an iPhone (especially versus $100 to $230 for all the others in the top nine slots).
was a bit of a distortion. :) Not only did Apple's 99 cent phone beat the sales for every model, but their $99 and $199 models did, too.

It was expected that the 4S had sold well, since it was a long-awaited upgrade... in fact, the ONLY upgrade available from Apple for over a year. It's one way to guarantee a sales spike in one quarter per year.
You seem to be trying to spin that as a bad thing. :confused: Could you explain to the group what problem you have with Apple's strategy for a more-or-less annual upgrade on its products?

As everyone points out, the numbers in this chart are for individual models, of which Apple has fewer than anyone else and which are used across multiple carriers. So it's no surprise that Apple's few models would score high on a chart arranged to highlight such things. Lump just the Galaxies together and the chart would be different.
If you find a source for those numbers, they would be interesting to discuss. But speculating about what those numbers would reveal without having them sounds like a pointless exercise.

IMO, the most interesting numbers are the reports of aggregate profit from all cell phone manufacturers for sales. The most recent report I can find (November 15, 2011) notes that Apple is receiving well over 50% of the profits of all US cell phone sales. Samsung is coming in at a bit less than 15%. Huge difference!

This was the largest part of your distortion, kdarling. Apple seems quite close on market share, but Apple has never had its focus on market share.

Heck, the iPhone 4 and 3GS were also at the top of the same USA chart the previous quarter, yet Samsung overall sold more smartphones during that period than Apple. Individual model charts are interesting, but ultimately meaningless when it comes to total market share.
Revenues are ultimately meaningless when compared to profits. And Apple is eating everybody's lunch on profits. Was there some reason you ignored my comments on profits in my earlier message in this thread?
 

FloatingBones

macrumors 65816
Jul 19, 2006
1,275
280
It's a really good thing that Apple exists for people who cannot figure out what they need on their own!
If you're saying that each of those 22 phones in Samsung's line actually has a unique niche/purpose, you're going to need more than innuendo to prove that.

Carriers don't sell all the models you're talking about, and most Americans buy devices from the carrier they use.
Actually, the webpage I referenced is specifically for Samsung phones sold by AT&T: Discover a wide variety of AT&T cell phones including the latest Android™ smartphones. Explore to find the perfect cell phone for you. Is Samsung so disconnected from their customers that they don't even know what cell phones that Verizon is actually selling?

Looking at Verizon's website, I only see four new Samsung smartphones for sale.
...but if you go to Samsung's Verizon page you will find six new Samsung smartphones listed. Confusing!

If I were a Samsung product manager managing the Verizon account, I'd make damn sure the products listed on the two websites stayed in sync with each other. Note: the iPhones models listed on the Verizon site agree exactly with the models listed on the Apple's webpage.

A few quick clicks and their website gives me a comparison chart, where it's easy to compare prices vs memory vs camera resolution vs 3G/LTE, etc.
So were you able to find a unique product niche that each of those four Samsung smartphones plays in Verizon's product line?

Is AT&T "better" because it offers many more Samsung models?

How many Samsung phones would be too many?

Those charts show relative profits multiplied by number of devices sold, not the per device profit.
No. The MacRumors front page article is clearly talking about aggregate industry profits: But even as Android surges to take more than half of the worldwide smartphone market by units, Apple continues to increase its share of mobile phone industry profits, with several studies showing that Apple currently takes in more than half of the industry's profits.

However, it's well known that Apple gets about 50% profit per unit vs the 30-35% that others get. Absolutely that's a benefit they get for being popular and buying a lot of the same parts in quantity by having few models. Is that what you mean? It's a great position to be in.
I can't quite tell if you understand: profits trump market share. If a company is earning over 3x the profits of a competitor in a market, they are dominating that market.

At the same time, Samsung has been making record operating profits from its smartphone sales the past few quarters, so it's not hurting at all.
Look at the chart I referenced. Compared to Apple, Samsung is doing terribly with its cell phone profits. Apple is eating the lunch of every single cell phone competitor. And then look at Apple's share price: since the start of 2007, Apple has enjoyed approximately a 500% increase in their corporate valuation. Samsung hasn't realized anything near that behavior.

It's even taking Nokia's place as the world's top smartphone seller.
That depends on what your definition of the "top" smartphone seller is. High volume at the expense of profit could well turn you into a Nokia.

People can start cheap and work their way up with brand loyalty.
Then why has Apple completely out-performed every cell manufacturer over the past 5 years -- since the introduction of the iPhone?

What if the "brand loyalty" that people develop is to the Android platform -- or the Windows platform?

----------

oh yes, they definitely do. how many companies can make a product and say here it is, it the best product in the world, we think its as good as it gets and it wont be updated for a year, take it or leave it. thats called confidence, when you don't adjust, you just make what you think is the best.
Bingo. The Motorola Mobility CEO revealed another ugly little detail about the relationship between the carriers and the commodity phone vendors this week on The Verge:

Chris Ziegler of The Verge said:
We also talked [with Motorola Mobility CEO Sanjay Jha] about OEMs' perennial press to skin the operating system — a trend that looks poised to continue in Android 4.0 — which developed into a full-blown conversation about the conflict between the mythical "stock Android device" and the realities of business between manufacturers like Motorola and carriers. "Verizon and AT&T don't want seven stock ICS devices on their shelves," he said, insisting that he "has to make money" and that there simply isn't a way to profit on a device that isn't differentiated. "The vast majority of the changes we make to the OS are to meet the requirements that carriers have."
The cell phone vendors have no confidence in the stock product from the Android vendors -- they demand they skin the operating system.

Apple doesn't stand for this nonsense. They do not allow for gratuitous "skinning" of their operating system. Their software -- and their brand -- is the same for all carriers.

These comments are what Sanjay Jha is willing to publicly tell us about what the carriers demand. Can you imagine the other carrier requirements are that he won't talk about. :(

I think all of the skinning has been terrible for Android. If there is some innovative way for Android phones to work, then those changes should be incorporated into the platform. I think that Google has left a real opening for Microsoft to make an impact with Windows 7: a far cleaner way for all of their phones to work.
 
Last edited:

beosound3200

macrumors 6502a
Nov 23, 2010
684
0
At any rate, you're changing the goalposts. My original assertion was simply that multiple models do not suggest a lack of confidence in one's product. I later added that theres different models to appeal to different demographics, not because Samsung lacks confidence. Somehow the rebuttal has turned into "tell me why Samsung needs to put out 22 models without a guide for users?"
oh yes, they definitely do. how many companies can make a product and say here it is, it the best product in the world, we think its as good as it gets and it wont be updated for a year, take it or leave it. thats called confidence, when you don't adjust, you just make what you think is the best.. how many market surveys does samsung do? and how many apple does? that tells you everything, samsung is like a teenager searching for identity and looking for support, trying to appeal everyone, and thats definitely not confidence, dont you think?

i understand that its all about making money, but i definitely prefer this 'new age companies' that have character, that are definitely into thinking their product is the best...

i really dont understand how can you make low end smartphone? you have 50 usd budget and now make something. i really dont believe in products that arent from the ground up designed to be the best, every product should be like that. and if you want low-end segment, just continue selling older versions 'of the best phone', its prefect dont you think?
 

danahn17

macrumors 6502
Dec 3, 2009
384
0
oh yes, they definitely do. how many companies can make a product and say here it is, it the best product in the world, we think its as good as it gets and it wont be updated for a year, take it or leave it. thats called confidence, when you don't adjust, you just make what you think is the best..
I disagree. Again, it's different business philosophies and strategies. There is no best way.

I don't doubt you for a moment when you say Apple is very confident in its products. I completely agree. And I know they don't use focus groups, etc. But Apple's business method is atypical compared to most others. It doesn't mean the way the competition works is wrong; in fact, that confidence can be a risky move that sometimes backfires (remember the iPod Hi-Fi? or Final Cut Pro X?).

And sometimes the lack of adjusting and listening to customer's wants can sometimes be fatal to a company (just look at Kodak :( or Borders and Sears). Now, I don't think that'll happen to Apple (nor do it wish it) but it's just to underscore how that method isn't necessarily the best business strategy.

This is why many businesses don't operate like Apple. There is a reason why business courses all place a lot of importance on focus groups, diversification, targeted marketing, etc... It's because Apple's strategy is an inherently risky strategy. Apple is special because Steve Jobs had the rare talent, vision, and ability to make it work. I'd also be willing to bet that had Apple picked any other CEO during that time, nearly all of them would have failed to revive Apple using this particular business method.

So I'm just saying Apple's business style is somewhat atypical and that you can't extrapolate Apple's philosophy with the business philosophies of other companies.

I'm sure Samsung's execs honestly believe in what they are doing and in their products. The fact that Samsung is positioning phones like the Galaxy SII to take on Apple itself should be enough to say they have confidence. If they had no confidence, why would they be releasing ads that say their Galaxy SII is better than Apple's iPhone 4S? If it was a bluff, customers would see through it, not buy the SII and ridicule Samsung. But the SII is a very popular phone so they're doing something right.

That's how i see it. I doubt that'll change your mind so we'll have to agree to disagree. cheers! :)
 

beosound3200

macrumors 6502a
Nov 23, 2010
684
0
I disagree. Again, it's different business philosophies and strategies. There is no best way.

I don't doubt you for a moment when you say Apple is very confident in its products. I completely agree. And I know they don't use focus groups, etc. But Apple's business method is atypical compared to most others. It doesn't mean the way the competition works is wrong; in fact, that confidence can be a risky move that sometimes backfires (remember the iPod Hi-Fi? or Final Cut Pro X?).

And sometimes the lack of adjusting and listening to customer's wants can sometimes be fatal to a company (just look at Kodak :( or Borders and Sears). Now, I don't think that'll happen to Apple (nor do it wish it) but it's just to underscore how that method isn't necessarily the best business strategy.

This is why many businesses don't operate like Apple. There is a reason why business courses all place a lot of importance on focus groups, diversification, targeted marketing, etc... It's because Apple's strategy is an inherently risky strategy. Apple is special because Steve Jobs had the rare talent, vision, and ability to make it work. I'd also be willing to bet that had Apple picked any other CEO during that time, nearly all of them would have failed to revive Apple using this particular business method.

So I'm just saying Apple's business style is somewhat atypical and that you can't extrapolate Apple's philosophy with the business philosophies of other companies.

I'm sure Samsung's execs honestly believe in what they are doing and in their products. The fact that Samsung is positioning phones like the Galaxy SII to take on Apple itself should be enough to say they have confidence. If they had no confidence, why would they be releasing ads that say their Galaxy SII is better than Apple's iPhone 4S? If it was a bluff, customers would see through it, not buy the SII and ridicule Samsung. But the SII is a very popular phone so they're doing something right.

That's how i see it. I doubt that'll change your mind so we'll have to agree to disagree. cheers! :)
well, i agree with your theory, but thats the point, that is why i like apple (products aside) they have character, they have personality, they have balls to say this is it, this is what we stand for, this is the best product and its all we got, take it or leave it, thats why i like them, they are not a typical business, i dont like average or typical in any way, and samsung is like any other company, no character, no vision, no soul, no feeling in any way, just making money (thats why they have 20 phones out there, to fit everyone so they can sell them more), and personally i think thats one of the reasons for apples success, i think people can see that and feel that (maybe apple would be like samsung if they werent successful, but who knows). i dont want products that are specifically designed for my 'needs' based on some focus groups, i want to buy a product that is the result of someones vision to make the best product in the world, i look at it like art, and to understand that you cant look at mobile phones or computers like tools, or cars like transportation device to get you from point a to point b, you look at it like masterpieces of design, engineering, looks, feel etc. and that certainly sounds very weird to you :)
 

bpaluzzi

macrumors 6502a
Sep 2, 2010
919
1
London
No, I don't think that is correct as concerning total SALES for the last quarter or year. The iOS has traditionally held a market lead in INSTALLED BASE but that began to shrink once Android (as an OS) was outselling iOS. I'm pretty certain that on a world-wide basis that Android is outselling iOS (on a per-quarter or rate basis).
iOS devices outsold Android devices by more than 30% worldwide in 2010. In 2011, that raised to >40%. And in the final quarter of 2011, the gap looks to have become even bigger. iOS is absolutely dominating in every meaningful metric. Yes, Android sells more smartphones, but that's an artificially constructed metric that has no real relevance. It's the same as saying that "Apple laptops outsell Windows laptops" (which I have no idea if it's the case -- it's just an example). Well, so what? Total users of an OS is the only thing that matters, if you're going to use quantitative metrics.

When you look at the overwhelming leads in overall sales (both at OS and device levels), profits, and customer satisfaction that Apple has... how exactly is Android "winning"?
 

danahn17

macrumors 6502
Dec 3, 2009
384
0
iOS devices outsold Android devices by more than 30% worldwide in 2010. In 2011, that raised to >40%. And in the final quarter of 2011, the gap looks to have become even bigger. iOS is absolutely dominating in every meaningful metric. Yes, Android sells more smartphones, but that's an artificially constructed metric that has no real relevance. It's the same as saying that "Apple laptops outsell Windows laptops" (which I have no idea if it's the case -- it's just an example). Well, so what? Total users of an OS is the only thing that matters, if you're going to use quantitative metrics.

When you look at the overwhelming leads in overall sales (both at OS and device levels), profits, and customer satisfaction that Apple has... how exactly is Android "winning"?
I'm a little confused. Am i missing here but you just said iOS devices outsold Android devices but Android sells more smartphones? You also said total users of an OS is the only thing that matters but then you use sales to support your claim why Apple is dominating the market.

At any rate, if you're gonna talk about "artificially constructed metric(s) that has no real relevance," then you can't really say "And in the final quarter of 2011, the gap looks to have become even bigger" because that too isn't an accurate picture of smartphone sales and marketshare in general. As the paragraph before the graph on page one says:

"The jump, from 26% in Q3 2011 to 43% in October and November, is due in-part to pent-up demand for the next iPhone following the pushback of the "iPhone 5" from the traditional June release cycle. As a result, iPhone share is unlikely to remain quite so high going forward, but the gain is nonetheless impressive."

I'm not knocking Apple--it is still an impressive feat--but a more accurate picture would be if you averaged the sales of all types of phones over the whole year..and even then the data would have many confounders that would make it hard to draw conclusions. (FWIW I have no idea how that would look like... Apple may still be number one if you do that... I'm just saying it'd probably be a slightly better data set to draw conclusions from than from solely looking at the Oct/Nov sales).
 

bpaluzzi

macrumors 6502a
Sep 2, 2010
919
1
London
I'm a little confused. Am i missing here but you just said iOS devices outsold Android devices but Android sells more smartphones? You also said total users of an OS is the only thing that matters but then you use sales to support your claim why Apple is dominating the market.
iOS isn't a smartphone OS. It's a mobile OS. There are more Android smartphones, but when you add in the iPad / iPod touch (and, on the other side, any Android non-phone devices), there are MANY more iOS devices.

Agree with you about the possible "outlierness" of the Q4 results, though. Just thought it was an interesting (potential) sign of things to come.
 

danahn17

macrumors 6502
Dec 3, 2009
384
0
iOS isn't a smartphone OS. It's a mobile OS. There are more Android smartphones, but when you add in the iPad / iPod touch (and, on the other side, any Android non-phone devices), there are MANY more iOS devices.
Gotcha. Can't believe I forgot about the iPad/iPod Touch and their Android counterparts. :eek::p

But I gotta agree with you there. I think one good indication of Apple's market strength is the App store. I know the Android market is supposed to be less regulated... so you would think there'd be more apps there but there really aren't.

Disregarding the customization apps that the Android Market is filled with (though I suppose you can find similar apps on Cydia)... when you look at specialized apps (tkae music creation for example), I find iOS to have so many more quality products from both small devs and large companies like Korg and Akai. And in companies that produce apps for both ecosystems, it generally seems (to me at least) that the app comes out on iOS first.

I guess you could make the argument that these companies are more adverse to producing apps for Android due to fragmentation and I supose ICS is Google's answer to that... but how successful that is will take some time and remains to be seen. But if developers have no reason to write compelling apps for Android, some customers will be less incline to go/stick with Android, thus further affecting marketshare.
 

FloatingBones

macrumors 65816
Jul 19, 2006
1,275
280
Please. It's not "love" or "hate" of any company to point out that 22 different models with no guidance is confusing!

A different way of asking the question: how many different cell phone models would Samsung have to have before you would proclaim that the product spread was confusing?
Seriously.
Yes, it was a serious question: how many different smartphones do you think Samsung or another manufacturer have to offer before the product spread was confusing? Also, can we get beyond the rhetoric you used earlier in the thread:

Is it too much to ask people to put aside their love for Apple or hate for other companies and just think a little logically for a bit?
Apple's strategy has given them the lion's share of profits for smartphone sales in the US. Claiming that their streamlined model strategy is not "logical" is really begging the question. Their financial performance is the envy of every company in the industry.

I got it from AT&T's website, which incidentally lets you compare cellphones and filter based upon certain criteria: http://bit.ly/whL4X7
There's a large discrepancy between the models that Samsung lists on their site for AT&T and what AT&T lists about Samsung models on their site. kdarling and I noticed the same discrepancy between Samsung and Verizon. Note: the list of Apple's phones on AT&T's site is completely accurate. Apple's product managers takes pains to ensure that communications about their brand is clear; Samsung does not.

You keep repeating the conjecture that there is targeted marketing. But you fail to produce any evidence of the actual targeting.
You admitted as much too: "Of course they're aimed for different target markets." So... okay.
Oh, dear. I broke one of my rules: I used a bit of sarcasm, and it was misunderstood. Here's what I said:

Of course they're aimed for different target markets. Otherwise, it would just be the equivalent of throwing a bunch of cooked spaghetti against the wall and seeing what would stick.
Apologies. But I was certainly not admitting any such thing.

Plus Samsung is a big and successful company. I'm sure the execs have gone to business school and learned of these things. [SNIP]
Samsung has been in the mobile phone market a long time (I see references back to 1986). In 2007, Samsung allowed a company with no experience in the mobile market to enter. Today, that company is dominating the profits in the marketplace -- and they're doing it with a vastly streamlined product offering. One could say that they re-wrote the textbooks on how a company can manufacture mobile devices and create an entire ecosystem around them. I'm certain that Samsung Electronic's executives went to business school, but they got an entirely different kind of education over the past five years.

Now whether or not it's an effective strategy can be another story/debate...
Precisely. We can have a debate about effective strategies without trying to put labels of "haters" onto those who disagree with us, can't we?

Whether or not I bought a Samsung phone and what my needs are irrelevent to this discussion. What my needs are may not be what yours are. So why bring it up?
You've provided no evidence that offering a confusing number of smartphones actually provides intrinsic value to the customers. @baldimac pointed out a clear advantage to a small number of models: a huge number of accessories are available for a streamlined product line. Unless all of those Samsung smartphones have the same form factor, then you will have much more difficulty finding compatible cases.

At any rate, you're changing the goalposts. My original assertion was simply that multiple models do not suggest a lack of confidence in one's product.
...and you've provided no substance to ever back up that assertion. Mobile phone manufacturer Apple is doing far better in the marketplace: 4x to 5x the profits.

Somehow the rebuttal has turned into "tell me why Samsung needs to put out 22 models without a guide for users?"
It's really the same question: provide some tangible evidence that the large number of models actually provides real value to customers. Show us that Samsung's strategy is more than throwing spaghetti on a wall and seeing what sticks.


I don't doubt you for a moment when you say Apple is very confident in its products. I completely agree. And I know they don't use focus groups, etc. But Apple's business method is atypical compared to most others. It doesn't mean the way the competition works is wrong; in fact, that confidence can be a risky move that sometimes backfires (remember the iPod Hi-Fi? or Final Cut Pro X?).
I believe everyone would agree that iPod Hi-Fi was a mistake. I certainly would. There were a couple of tactical gaffes that Apple made with FCP X: failing to offer the old product to existing customers and some backwards-compatible features. I believe they have all been addressed at this point.

Are those the best "failures" to come up with? Really? How about the Newton -- that was a far bigger failure. :D

And sometimes the lack of adjusting and listening to customer's wants can sometimes be fatal to a company (just look at Kodak :( or Borders and Sears). Now, I don't think that'll happen to Apple (nor do it wish it) but it's just to underscore how that method isn't necessarily the best business strategy.
Please. In the last five years, Apple has increased its value by almost 500%. They have gone from nothing in the smartphone market to a dominant position. In the US, Apple earns a majority of the smartphone profits -- companies like Samsung have to fight for the scraps. And you have the audacity to call that a "lack of adjusting". Nonsense!

This is why many businesses don't operate like Apple.
I disagree. They don't operate like Apple because they lack the vision and the discipline to operate that way.

There is a reason why business courses all place a lot of importance on focus groups, diversification, targeted marketing, etc... It's because Apple's strategy is an inherently risky strategy. Apple is special because Steve Jobs had the rare talent, vision, and ability to make it work. I'd also be willing to bet that had Apple picked any other CEO during that time, nearly all of them would have failed to revive Apple using this particular business method.
The status quo is also a risky business strategy -- if a game-changer comes into your market.

I'm sure Samsung's execs honestly believe in what they are doing and in their products.
It's the job of execs to honestly believe in their strategies.

I'm sure that the execs at Nokia honestly believe in their products.

I'm absolutely positive the co-chairmen at RIM believe in their products. Everything will be peachy once they get their new OS. :eek:

Partly because of their huge profit margin, Apple has skipped over markets like India where a billion people cannot afford to buy an iPhone. Those are the types of markets where having multiple models really help in the short and long term. People can start cheap and work their way up with brand loyalty.
This is a rather bizarre veiled insult at Apple. What's your basis for this rather strange claim? Is there a UN EPC (Excessive Profit Commission) out there? Has India lodged a formal complaint with that commission? Would you be happier if Apple was less efficient at driving down supplier costs and creating innovative cost-cutting manufacturing processes?

FYI: there are multiple iPhone models available: the 3GS, the 4, and the 4S. Unlocked phones are available most everywhere -- including India. People can buy the cheaper phone and work up from there.
 
Last edited:

danahn17

macrumors 6502
Dec 3, 2009
384
0
Claiming that their streamlined model strategy is not "logical" is really begging the question. Their financial performance is the envy of every company in the industry.
I actually never claimed Apple's strategy is illogical. I did say it's not a common one, but I never said it's illogical :)

Samsung has been in the mobile phone market a long time (I see references back to 1986). In 2007, Samsung allowed a company with no experience in the mobile market to enter. Today, that company is dominating the profits in the marketplace -- and they're doing it with a vastly streamlined product offering.
Yes and no. The smartphone market as we know it did not exist back in 2007. That was around the time Blackberrys were king and phones like the LG Chocolate were the hot phones to get. Apple found a niche and filled it. You can't really blame Apple's success on Samsung's (or any other handset company) failure in management simply because it was an undefined market back then. I mean, people weren't even sure if the iPhone was going to be successful. Apple even had to turn to AT&T after conflicts with their initial first choice, Verizon (today, companies would line up to be first to release an Apple product). It was cool, yes, but it was SO expensive (for phones back then at least). Nowadays, nobody bats an eye at smartphone prices.

So Apple's lack of experience didn't matter in a sense because they defined the market. BTW "lack of experience" is somewhat relative; Apple's experience in computers and OS surely played a role in the development of the iPhone. I bet that's one of the reasons why, to this day, I still feel iOS runs more smoothly than the Android OS.

One could say that they re-wrote the textbooks on how a company can manufacture mobile devices and create an entire ecosystem around them. I'm certain that Samsung Electronic's executives went to business school, but they got an entirely different kind of education over the past five years.
Perhaps they did. Amazon is certainly following that model with the Fire. But all I’m saying is that Samsung, to me, is simply following the standard business school’s positioning/marketing point of view. Even with Apple’s success, I’m not sure many schools changed their mind to say do it Apple’s way. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m not aware of any major tech company that operates similarly to Apple even today.

It's really the same question: provide some tangible evidence that the large number of models actually provides real value to customers.
I’ve been saying it allows the customer to buy what is good for their needs. I gave examples of situations earlier. I can’t provide any more tangible evidence than that; to get something more tangible, you’d need to have a pretty large survey given to Samsung users asking what phone they bought, what their needs were, if the phone satisfied their needs, how happy they are with it, etc… But I don’t have the ability to do that.

That’s why I explained how the multiple products approach is commonly taught in business school… They teach that because there's enough cases that have shown tangible evidence of how multiple models benefits both consumers and businesses. And because of that, to me, it’s not too far fetched to see why Samsung did what they did.

And before you jump on me for saying I have no tangible evidence, remember that you don’t have tangible evidence that the different models confuse customers or how Samsung doesn’t operate like Apple because they lack vision and discipline.

Also, while I don't think "does multiple models suggest a lack of confidence?" and "tell me why Samsung needs to put out 22 models without a guide for users?" ask the same question like you say, I addressed the confidence thing by referring to the ad where Samsung positions the Galaxy SII as a smartphone on par with or better than the iPhone 4S. You need a certain amount of confidence to decide to create a phone designed to go head-to-head with the market leading iPhone. You need even more confidence to commission ads that position your phone as such; if it were just a bluff, customers would see right through it and your words would come back to bite you. But the SII is a popular phone with overall highly positive reviews. So I'd say they have some confidence in their products and what they are doing... and delivering on their claims too.

Are those the best "failures" to come up with? Really? How about the Newton -- that was a far bigger failure. :D
I wanted to use recent examples as to the older ones. I was thinking if I used an old example, people would say it doesn’t apply to today’s Apple.

In the US, Apple earns a majority of the smartphone profits -- companies like Samsung have to fight for the scraps. And you have the audacity to call that a "lack of adjusting". Nonsense!
Again, I never said that Apple was doing wrong. I was providing examples of how other companies chose not to listen and/or adapt…which went to underscore how special Apple / Steve Jobs are. And again, I can’t really think of another company that successfully operates similarly to Apple.

It's the job of execs to honestly believe in their strategies.

I'm sure that the execs at Nokia honestly believe in their products.
My very first post on this thread (and all the subsequent ones) said Samsung’s multiple offerings does not mean they lack confidence in their products. That’s all I was saying before all this blew up :)

At any rate, it’s clear that I won’t change your mind and you won’t change mine. Just decided to reply since I felt many of my words were misinterpreted in your post and wanted to clarify. Regardless, like I said before, let’s just agree to disagree and leave it at that (i'm getting sick of reading and writing essays) :p :)
 
Last edited:

kdarling

macrumors P6
kdarling said:
Partly because of their huge profit margin, Apple has skipped over markets like India where a billion people cannot afford to buy an iPhone. Those are the types of markets where having multiple models really help in the short and long term. People can start cheap and work their way up with brand loyalty.
This is a rather bizarre veiled insult at Apple.
lol what? Those are just facts. Instead of trying to twist what people say into some paranoid fantasy, how about pointing out what you think is incorrect.

What's your basis for this rather strange claim? Is there a UN EPC (Excessive Profit Commission) out there? Has India lodged a formal complaint with that commission? Would you be happier if Apple was less efficient at driving down supplier costs and creating innovative cost-cutting manufacturing processes?
The basis for my "strange claim" that the iPhone doesn't sell well in India -- because of price -- is a simple fact that you can look up. Do some research next time.

FYI: there are multiple iPhone models available: the 3GS, the 4, and the 4S. Unlocked phones are available most everywhere -- including India. People can buy the cheaper phone and work up from there.
Forget the 4S and 4 at 40,000 to 50,000 Rs... a third of the price of the cheapest new Indian car..., even the 3GS is priced by Apple at over 20,000 Rs, which puts it out of reach of most people. A decent starter Android phone can be priced as low as 5,000-8,000 Rs.

The facts are that the iPhone has only sold in the tens of thousands in a country with a billion cell phone users. (Facts are not a slam at Apple, no matter how much you wish to make them so.)

It's not just Apple. All upper end smartphones sell very slowly in India. I think the N96 might be less than ten thousand.

So the point was and still is, that having multiple models over a wide price range is not a bad thing. It can mean getting more customers, and in return they have access to tools that would otherwise be out of their reach.
 

MacCurry

macrumors 6502
Aug 28, 2006
407
55
lol what? Those are just facts. Instead of trying to twist what people say into some paranoid fantasy, how about pointing out what you think is incorrect.



The basis for my "strange claim" that the iPhone doesn't sell well in India -- because of price -- is a simple fact that you can look up. Do some research next time.



Forget the 4S and 4 at 40,000 to 50,000 Rs... a third of the price of the cheapest new Indian car..., even the 3GS is priced by Apple at over 20,000 Rs, which puts it out of reach of most people. A decent starter Android phone can be priced as low as 5,000-8,000 Rs.

The facts are that the iPhone has only sold in the tens of thousands in a country with a billion cell phone users. (Facts are not a slam at Apple, no matter how much you wish to make them so.)

It's not just Apple. All upper end smartphones sell very slowly in India. I think the N96 might be less than ten thousand.

So the point was and still is, that having multiple models over a wide price range is not a bad thing. It can mean getting more customers, and in return they have access to tools that would otherwise be out of their reach.
Hold on just a minute, the discussion about India is off-topic. Subsidized phones do not sell in India because people switch from one carrier to another on a regular basis, and more importantly, the market is geared toward buying unlocked phones. Additionally, it is a cash society since credit is very difficult to get.

Yes, subsidized phones are available there, but nobody wants it because the rates are high. If in the US we had to buy unsubsidized smart phones, who is going to pay nearly $700 for in iPhone 4s (which you can get unlocked from Apple) or an unlocked GSM Galaxy Nexus (from Expansys)? The sales would be abysmal. Similarly the 16GB iPhone 4s in India sells for Rs. 44,300 = $860. I don't think there would be too many buyers for that here in the US.

The latest estimates of smart phone sales in India are 5-6% of all sales. The market, even with the downturn is still 7% GDP growth, will see smart phone sales increase 25% per year at a conservative rate. In my opinion, Apple is going to loose sales in India, but won't care because their products will command a premium like China. In the end, Apple will still make healthy profits.
 
Last edited:

FloatingBones

macrumors 65816
Jul 19, 2006
1,275
280
I actually never claimed Apple's strategy is illogical. I did say it's not a common one, but I never said it's illogical :)
But you did say:

Is it too much to ask people to put aside their love for Apple or hate for other companies and just think a little logically for a bit?
You have yet to reconcile who -- or why -- you think anyone is "hating" without logical thought in this discussion. One would presume that you would use logical reasoning to show why I (or perhaps others) are not thinking logically. So far, you haven't done that. It was a mistake to bring the h-word into the discussion -- especially since you've provided nothing to justify it.

Yes and no. The smartphone market as we know it did not exist back in 2007.
Actually, yes. I didn't say smartphone market; I said mobile market. Samsumg has been in the mobile market for over 25 years. They allowed a company who had never made mobile phones to come into that market. Apple now commands the lion's share of the profits in smartphones -- the only part of the mobile market that's making any serious profits. With things like commodity prepaid Android phones, the entire marketplace is rapidly shifting to smartphones.

You can't really blame Apple's success on Samsung's (or any other handset company) failure in management simply because it was an undefined market back then.
Of course you can. Nokia, Samsung, RIM, and others, all failed to have the vision and leadership to see where the mobile phone market was going. Apple's move was innovation on a grand scale -- innovation of the entire mobile ecosystem.

I mean, people weren't even sure if the iPhone was going to be successful.
Of course. Whenever a company does something truly innovative, you never know if it's going to be successful. Why in heaven's name does it justify Samsung's failure of vision to create this now-dominant segment of the mobile phone industry? That failure to act had a huge impact on the bottom line of Samsung.

Apple even had to turn to AT&T after conflicts with their initial first choice, Verizon (today, companies would line up to be first to release an Apple product).
Apple realized the existing contracts between manufacturers and the carriers were strangling innovation in the mobile phone industry. Whether or not Verizon was Apple's "first choice", they were not ready for those changes. Cingular/AT&T was willing to dive in, and they were able to ride the wave of iPhone success.

Those pointless practices continue by the carriers to this day -- including AT&T. They still demand that the manufacturers skin their Android phones. These superficial manipulations do nothing for the manufacturers -- or even for Android customers as a whole. They have absolutely nothing to do true innovation.

Apple doesn't play this nonsense game. They have drawn a line in the sand; they don't allow gratuitous "skinning" of their phones by the carriers.

I haven't checked: does Samsung accede to carrier demands to skin their Android phones, too?

So Apple's lack of experience didn't matter in a sense because they defined the market.
That's what the leaders/innovators do: they define where the market will go. You seem to believe that Samsung was justified in failing to drive the mobile phone market to the next great thing. That's not logical; it is the job of an industry leader to anticipate/innovate their marketplace. What you are describing is complacency.

BTW "lack of experience" is somewhat relative; Apple's experience in computers and OS surely played a role in the development of the iPhone. I bet that's one of the reasons why, to this day, I still feel iOS runs more smoothly than the Android OS.
Apple was able to innovate its experience with personal computers and iPods to be a game-changer in the mobile phone market. With the iPod, Apple realized that the status quo with the music industry was unhealthy for consumers. They were able to leverage that into altering the fundamental relationship with the carriers.

Perhaps they did.
Of course they did! Do you understand the magnitude of the lost opportunity for Samsung? At the start of 2007, Apple had a market cap of around $80b. Today, their market cap is $390b -- the #1 publicly-traded company in the world. They have blown right by Samsung Electronics, who has a current market cap of around $134b.

But all I’m saying is that Samsung, to me, is simply following the standard business school’s positioning/marketing point of view.
They lost the opportunity to be the world's leader in the smartphone market.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m not aware of any major tech company that operates similarly to Apple even today.
Just look at the companies that have succeeded in being game-changers in their industry: Amazon, Google, Facebook. And you can bet 310 billion dollars that Stanford is teaching this way in their business school. Check out this new innovative program.

I’ve been saying it allows the customer to buy what is good for their needs.
You've made the conjecture Samsung's models do this. But you've never ever provided any specifics to back up that claim: what model works for what purpose. You have never addressed the obvious shortcomings of that approach: there will be far more limited availability of accessories (e.g., cases) for any particular Samsung model. And, most importantly, you've failed to explain how Apple's one model doesn't work well for everyone's needs.

I can’t provide any more tangible evidence than that; to get something more tangible, you’d need to have a pretty large survey given to Samsung users asking what phone they bought, what their needs were, if the phone satisfied their needs, how happy they are with it, etc… But I don’t have the ability to do that.
In short, you have a conjecture and you can't back it up. :(

That’s why I explained how the multiple products approach is commonly taught in business school… They teach that because there's enough cases that have shown tangible evidence of how multiple models benefits both consumers and businesses. And because of that, to me, it’s not too far fetched to see why Samsung did what they did.
And you didn't back up this conjecture with any specifics, either. :(

If I were in one of those business schools and they actually taught me that, I'd ask the instructor what we should be learning from the company with the highest market capitalization in the world.

And before you jump on me for saying I have no tangible evidence, remember that you don’t have tangible evidence that the different models confuse customers or how Samsung doesn’t operate like Apple because they lack vision and discipline.
Nonsense. I've provided tangible evidence that Apple's strategy is running circles around Samsung.

You need a certain amount of confidence to decide to create a phone designed to go head-to-head with the market leading iPhone.
I suppose. RIMM certainly needed a certain amount of confidence to go head-to-head against the Playbook. :D

You need even more confidence to commission ads that position your phone as such;
Nope. You just need money. RIMM even had more "confidence": they bought rights to Queen's 1980 song for their commercial. Did Samsung have enough "confidence" to rent a Queen song?

But the SII is a popular phone with overall highly positive reviews. So I'd say they have some confidence in their products and what they are doing... and delivering on their claims too.
So what measurable impact has this phone had on Samsung's profitability? Remember: profit trumps market share; winning market share at the expense of profit is the booby prize.

I wanted to use recent examples as to the older ones. I was thinking if I used an old example, people would say it doesn’t apply to today’s Apple.
But the two examples you cited were also irrelevant. FCP is less than 1/1000 of 1% of Apple's bottom line. And the speakers are even less than that. Both of those products are peripheral to Apple's main lines. And the strategic changes to FCP should work out just fine in the long run. If those are the best examples you can come up with, that betrays the weakness of your argument.

You do realize that Apple reached another all time-high in its valuation this past week, right? I don't think those "mistakes" had much impact on their bottom line, do you?

My very first post on this thread (and all the subsequent ones) said Samsung’s multiple offerings does not mean they lack confidence in their products. That’s all I was saying [SNIP]
AFAICT, you don't know the difference between a conjecture and a well-reasoned factual argument. And you really don't understand the opportunity that Samsung has missed in the smartphone market.

Also, you still haven't answered: how many different smartphones do you think Samsung or another manufacturer have to offer before the product spread was confusing?

I've noted repeatedly: haven't explained your "hating" comment. You still haven't done that. Please do not use labels like that in this discussion -- especially if they don't make any logical sense.

Do you now retract your "hating" comment?


lol what? Those are just facts.
As @MacCurry noted, the statement was entirely irrelevant what we're discussing in this thread. That's what was incorrect with your contribution.
 
Last edited:

danahn17

macrumors 6502
Dec 3, 2009
384
0
Me asking people to think logically for a bit is NOT the same as me saying Apple’s strategy is illogical.

Just look at the companies that have succeeded in being game-changers in their industry: Amazon, Google, Facebook. And you can bet 310 billion dollars that Stanford is teaching this way in their business school. Check out this new innovative program.
When I was saying I’m not aware of any major tech company operating similar to Apple today, I was referring to Apple’s business practice of releasing one model per year on their cash cow product without changing to any customer feedback. Amazon, Google, and Facebook all use different business strategies. That Stanford program doesn’t say to do that at all.

You've made the conjecture Samsung's models do this. But you've never ever provided any specifics to back up that claim: what model works for what purpose. You have never addressed the obvious shortcomings of that approach: there will be far more limited availability of accessories (e.g., cases) for any particular Samsung model. And, most importantly, you've failed to explain how Apple's one model doesn't work well for everyone's needs.
I’m not gonna go do all of them since I don’t have time but here:
Galaxy S™ II, 4G – Android phone designed for people who want a top end phone like iPhone
Galaxy SII Skyrocket LTE – Like SII but for those who want a bigger screen or LTE
Rugby II – basic phone but for those who need sturdy phones (outdoorsy, military, etc)
Captivate 4G, physical keyboard – Android phone for those who still prefer a physical keyboard (for example people who text a lot and want the tactile feedback)
Focus 3G Win – cheaper windows phone but lose out on speed. Appeals to those who don’t need/want 4G and don’t want to pay more either.
Focus S 4G Win – 4G windows phone for those who want a top end windows phone
Doubletime 3G Keyboard – physical keyboard like Captivate but for those who don’t need/want 4G and don’t want to pay more either.
Apple’s iPhone may not appeal to the same market segment as those who’d buy a Rugby II. For those people, it doesn’t work well for their needs.

If you want to call it a conjecture…it’s true, it is. But in business school, dissecting things in this manner is fairly common. After all, it’s a social science and not a hard science like biology or math where the answer is more certain.

As for shortcomings, I’m fully aware of that approaches shortcomings. Every approach has its own pros and cons—Apple’s included. If Apple made a major misstep with their iPhone, it could hurt sales from their cash cow product and, if it were serious enough, it may even damage their reputation.

And you didn't back up this conjecture with any specifics, either.
In the quote you quoted… I never said it was a fact. I even said “to me” which implies the opposite.

Nonsense. I've provided tangible evidence that Apple's strategy is running circles around Samsung.
Apple running circles around Samsung does not prove Samsung lacks vision and discipline. All it does is proves Apple is very successful with their business model. It doesn’t mean all companies have to follow Apple as different companies have different management styles, cultures, etc. There is no one size fits all. Additionally, Apple running circles around Samsung is not tangible evidence why different models confused customers.

I suppose RIMM certainly needed a certain amount of confidence to go head-to-head against the Playbook.
But we saw how the Playbook failed and how RIM took a beating for that. Samsung claimed something and were successful in at least customers bought the item and believed it was a good product.
Motorola using Queen doesn’t mean much either. Apple didn't use Queen either (they did use U2 but they didn't pay to use it). Samsung had Ozzy Ozborne on one of its commercials. Or watch the “The Way We’re Wired” ad by Samsung. Whether or not you agree with it, the tone and message of the ad is confident. It said that they didn’t design the SII to be a 2nd rate phone.

So what measurable impact has this phone had on Samsung's profitability? Remember: profit trumps market share; winning market share at the expense of profit is the booby prize.
I wasn’t talking about profitability. I was talking about confidence. They’re two separate things. And, on an unrelated note, winning market share at the expense of profit can work too. Look at Amazon. But again not all companies can pull it off (as seen when the dot com bubble burst).

But the two examples you cited were also irrelevant.
It didn’t affect their bottom line. I never once said that it did. I was just saying going Apple’s route without focus groups and such can occasionally backfire. This is why companies do use focus groups and do release different models… It’s to catch problems before they occur and to minimize damage if they do occur.

AFAICT, you don't know the difference between a conjecture and a well-reasoned factual argument. And you really don't understand the opportunity that Samsung has missed in the smartphone market.
Is it fair that the burden of proof is on me to have to answer with facts when the claims that came out first were also conjectures? People said at first that the many models means Samsung is not confident in itself. That’s all they said; no proof. So I gave a dissenting opinion. You think Pepsi tastes better so I say I think Coke tastes better. You say Canon’s cameras are better designed, I say Nikon’s are.

Additionally, many of my quotes have been interpreted or taken out of context or used in a manner that I did not intend them to be. I also never said once that my reasoning was a fact.

Also, you still haven't answered: how many different smartphones do you think Samsung or another manufacturer have to offer before the product spread was confusing?
And you never countered my example with Fender guitars. But my answer to that doesn’t matter. If I said 50 and the person next to me said 1 and the other person said 20, who’s right?

I've noted repeatedly: haven't explained your "hating" comment. You still haven't done that. Please do not use labels like that in this discussion -- especially if you can't back them up.

Do you now retract your "hating" comment?
It was spoken as more along general terms partly out of frustration. I probably should not have said that after quoting you as wasn't my intention was to call you a hater. It was my mistake. If you took offense to what I wrote, then I apologize and I’ll retract it in regards to this thread... but i'll stick by it in regards to MacRumors as a whole as--and I’m sure you’ll agree with me here--there are many threads here with fanboys (on both sides) that believe any company other than their own is incapable of doing any good.

But please note that since then, my posts have tried to be respectful. If you don’t think so, then apologies again. Okay? cheers!