Phones being orphaned at an early age is unfortunately very much a feature of the Android scene.
Marketshare?There’s this faux perception on this forum that if you do a good, best-in-class, outstanding, revolutionary or otherwise killer product you automatically will be successful as a business. Things are much more complex than that thou.
Even if you sell massive amounts of a product and gain sizable market share, you can still be bleeding money and not be viable.
This is not about LG not innovating, not doing great phones and quality builds, I would say it has nothing to do with sells being low even, or not marketing properly.
The premium bracket of smartphones is cornered with Apple taking in 80-90% of the profits of the whole worldwide smartphone business and the rest 20-10% left to scramble by a myriad of manufacturers on all price brackets, from $50-80 USD borderline dumb android phones all the way up to $2K foldables.
Think about this for a second. Then, include all the emerging value-oriented Chinese manufaturers into the equation and you’ll see how even Samsung might be in trouble going forward.
Apple Continues To Dominate The Smartphone Profit Pool
Apple’s share of the smartphone market profits is over four times larger than Samsung, its closest competitor, and most of the Chinese smartphone companies operate at a breakeven level.www.forbes.com
Huge flaw in your line of thinking. A company can't stay afloat with just one or a few products that they are "good at". People thought the iPhone was generating so much revenue that Apple didn't need to do much more in the tech industry since it was said by some that the iPhone carries the company, which isn't true. This is why Apple is now offering subscription services and innovating with the M1 chips. Amazon is "good at" internet sales and delivery of products, but they recognize they can't stay on top without offering Prime memberships and it's other streaming services.
Yes and no. LG holds the license for OLED and Samsung did not want to license the technology from LG. Samsung released an OLED TV and they decided to end production for the reason I mentioned. The decided to focus on the Quantum Dot tech.
The same thing was said of the Amiga PC back in the day. It was claimed to be a superior product over the Apple ][ and Macintosh but failed only because of marketing. Those same pundits claimed the opposite about Apple. It produced inferior products but was a genius in marketing, i.e. only stupid people buy Apple.
There will always be demand for iKockoffs, just like fake Gucci’s and fake Rolex’s, from people who want the appearance of quality but are unable ro unwilling to pay for it.
Not quite - LG bought the patents for WOLED panels while Samsung pursued and protected their RGB panels. In 2013 they both launch their TVs and as yields were low a 55" cost $10k. Within a few years, LG's WOLED yields increased and the cost fell to $3k. Samsung's yields didn't rise and rather than continue with an uncompetitive product they withdrew from the market.
I think they've shed those old days very well, but I'm old enough to still equate the two
1.) Given how many companies Apple has bought in the past and recently, it's not that far from reality.
I've always had very good luck with LG appliances. The refrigerator in my rental property is 11+ years old now and never had an issue and my washer and dryer are now 12+ years old and only my washer has only had one small problem (which I fixed myself that was a $20 part). So serious question - did something change? Asking because I plan on replacing the all the appliances in my house house this year and have been leaning towards LG.
Nothing changed.
With these two posts alone it further helps to convince me that the brand name matters in terms of who gets a pass with an excuse and who gets trashed.
