Samsung Reveals Extent of Note7 Battery Fire Investigation

[I7guy]

The "one trillion" is Dediu's prediction for all iOS ecosystem products sold from 2007-2017... including iPhones, iPads, iPod touch, Apple TV, Apple Watch and App Store.

Yes, other sources exist if iPhones had to be recalled, but again, the profits would be about half normal for that period.

Still more than enough, though

All of this is just speculation until something occurs. Hopefully all phone manufacturers learn in a positive way from this.

And yes, this is quite the milestone for apple.

 

[admob71]

Actually the discussion is "Samsung reveals results of note investigation".

It's not about would Apple would do or any straw man to bring Apple into the picture. What makes this different is:
- the global recall
- the continuing aircraft ban
- combined with the washing machine exploding

A 96% is great considering one has a choice of full refund, new phone or brick.

Its great the entirety of Samsung in spite of the note fiasco did well. But this thread isn't about that either.

With iOS App Store profits approaching one trillion, it's clear other sources of revenue exist even though iPhone sales can fluctuate.

Some of what Apple does deserves to be criticized but that is not what this thread is about either.

A trillion? Off 99 cent apps!! Brilliant!!!

 

[Swift]

Well, the Note 7 was Samsung's most expensive phone.
Meanwhile, we have numerous cheap Xiaomi phones that don't seem to have issues.

It only shows that mistakes happen. The key is how to address it. Samsung didn't act accordingly at first until the US government put a firmer note. With the whole scandal in S. Korea to add, now Samsung is acting better, being transparent.

The first major story--Bloomberg? WSJ?-- was that thy gambled on design and features to knock out Apple. They rushed it.

 

[kdarling]

Apple had close to 89% of the available smartphone profit in 2014 and 91% in 2015 (vs Samsung's 14%). As you might remember, the Samsung Note 7 spontaneous combustion recall occurred in the later part of 2016. In 2016 Apple captured 104% of the profits.

Oh, 104%. I see. You're repeating the funny math figures which are only used by click bait bloggers.

The forum has already been over why that bogus method of adding in losses can lead to ridiculous results. Such nonsensical numbers are also why people make ignorant comments like "Nobody else must be making any money at all".

Instead, I'm quoting their percentage of the actual worldwide smartphone profits. That's how you get the true picture of profit sharing. Losses belong to a different category.

Cheers!

The first major story--Bloomberg? WSJ?-- was that thy gambled on design and features to knock out Apple. They rushed it.

Bloomberg click bait. They often host "guest editorials" as filler. They knock everyone. Even super loyal Apple fans don't believe Bloomberg:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/bloombergs-anti-apple-bias.1584968/

Moreover, as I pointed out above, that anti-Samsung article you're talking about actually gave facts that countered its own conclusion: 1) that the launch date was barely moved up, and 2) carrier testing began months before in May 2016 and also uncovered no battery problems.

Instead, they breathlessly repeated reports of people working hard right up to launch date, something which happens in every company with every phone maker's launch.

Heck, guess who is MOST famous for making last minute changes, even claiming they need Chinese workers who can be woken up in the middle of the night to make production line modifications? Hint: starts with an "A".

In short, beware click bait. The internet is rife with it.

 

[I7guy]

Oh, 104%. I see. You're repeating the funny math figures which are only used by click bait bloggers.

The forum has already been over why that bogus method of adding in losses can lead to ridiculous results. Such nonsensical numbers are also why people make ignorant comments like "Nobody else must be making any money at all".

Instead, I'm quoting their percentage of the actual worldwide smartphone profits. That's how you get the true picture of profit sharing. Losses belong to a different category.

Cheers!


Bloomberg click bait. They often host "guest editorials" as filler. They knock everyone. Even super loyal Apple fans don't believe Bloomberg:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/bloombergs-anti-apple-bias.1584968/

Moreover, as I pointed out above, that anti-Samsung article you're talking about actually gave facts that countered its own conclusion: 1) that the launch date was barely moved up, and 2) carrier testing began months before in May 2016 and also uncovered no battery problems.

Instead, they breathlessly repeated reports of people working hard right up to launch date, something which happens in every company with every phone maker's launch.

Heck, guess who is MOST famous for making last minute changes, even claiming they need Chinese workers who can be woken up in the middle of the night to make production line modifications? Hint: starts with an "A".

In short, beware click bait. The internet is rife with it.

Still some hints of deflections buried within that post. What does Apple have to do with any of this? A last minute change by Apple does not make the world wide recall, aircraft ban or device failures okay as in business as usual.

As far as "trusted sources" pick your poison.

And as far as the 104%; there are two companies in the world making smartphones. one company made 10b innorofitnthe other lost 5b. What percentage of profits did each company make?

 

[citysnaps]

Oh, 104%. I see. You're repeating the funny math figures which are only used by click bait bloggers.

The forum has already been over why that bogus method of adding in losses can lead to ridiculous results. Such nonsensical numbers are also why people make ignorant comments like "Nobody else must be making any money at all".

Instead, I'm quoting their percentage of the actual worldwide smartphone profits. That's how you get the true picture of profit sharing. Losses belong to a different category.

Cheers!


Bloomberg click bait. They often host "guest editorials" as filler. They knock everyone. Even super loyal Apple fans don't believe Bloomberg:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/bloombergs-anti-apple-bias.1584968/

Moreover, as I pointed out above, that anti-Samsung article you're talking about actually gave facts that countered its own conclusion: 1) that the launch date was barely moved up, and 2) carrier testing began months before in May 2016 and also uncovered no battery problems.

Instead, they breathlessly repeated reports of people working hard right up to launch date, something which happens in every company with every phone maker's launch.

Heck, guess who is MOST famous for making last minute changes, even claiming they need Chinese workers who can be woken up in the middle of the night to make production line modifications? Hint: starts with an "A".

In short, beware click bait. The internet is rife with it.

"For the past year or two, Apple usually has 60% of the smartphone profit, and Samsung has 30%. Apple only got 90% right now because of the Note 7 recall."


My point, is your assertion in post #197 that Apple only had 60% of the smartphone profits for the last couple years prior to the Samsung Note 7 spontaneous combustion catastrophe, is demonstrably false, and belongs in the category of what's now known as alternative facts. Clearly you were just making stuff up.

 

[kdarling]

As far as "trusted sources" pick your poison.

I'd believe in an Underwriter Laboratory report long before I believed in an internet article that was written to get clicks.

And as far as the 104%; there are two companies in the world making smartphones. one company made 10b in profit and the other lost 5b. What percentage of profits did each company make?

I suppose you want to say that the first company made 200% of the total profits. Which makes no sense and conveys no usable info. It's another example of letting a click bait article mess you up.

Let me repeat just two examples I've given before about why that non-standard method is so useless to present information.

===============================
Example of how stupid it is #1:
===============================

(+$10) A makes $10
(-$9) B loses $9
(-$1) C loses $1
-----------------
Sum : 0

Therefore by the stupid method, Company A made $10/0 of the total, and divide by zero is undefined.

The correct way to report it is that A had 100% of the industry profits, B had 90% of the losses, and C had 10% of the losses. People can instantly understand all of that.

===============================
Example of how stupid it is #2:
===============================

(+$10) A makes $10
(-$10) B loses $10
(-$20) C loses $20
---------------
-$20 total industry "profits"

In this case, Company C... because their loss was equal to the industry sum total... mathematically made 100% of industry "profits" (-20/-20), while poor Company A "failed" with -50% of the profit (10/-20).

How on earth does that convey to anyone that Company C actually LOST twice as much as Company A MADE in that example? Answer: it doesn't.

The whole setup is a bogus, non-standard method designed by one analyst to make a company look better than it is, and only under certain circumstances.

 

[I7guy]

I'd believe in an Underwriter Laboratory report long before I believed in an internet article that was written to get clicks.



I suppose you want to say that the first company made 200% of the total profits. Which makes no sense and conveys no usable info. It's another example of letting a click bait article mess you up.

Let me repeat just two examples I've given before about why that non-standard method is so useless to present information.

===============================
Example of how stupid it is #1:
===============================

(+$10) A makes $10
(-$9) B loses $9
(-$1) C loses $1
-----------------
Sum : 0

Therefore by the stupid method, Company A made $10/0 of the total, and divide by zero is undefined.

The correct way to report it is that A had 100% of the industry profits, B had 90% of the losses, and C had 10% of the losses. People can instantly understand all of that.

===============================
Example of how stupid it is #2:
===============================

(+$10) A makes $10
(-$10) B loses $10
(-$20) C loses $20
---------------
-$20 total industry "profits"

In this case, Company C... because their loss was equal to the industry sum total... mathematically made 100% of industry "profits" (-20/-20), while poor Company A "failed" with -50% of the profit (10/-20).

How on earth does that convey to anyone that Company C actually LOST twice as much as Company A MADE in that example? Answer: it doesn't.

The whole setup is a bogus, non-standard method designed by one analyst to make a company look better than it is, and only under certain circumstances.

As I said, pick your poison as to what you trust. I do believe Samsung rushed certain things and maybe under-engineered the phone.

As far as your example, there is no way to make Samsung mobile division look good.

 

[Zaft]

To be fair antenna gate wasn't really much of an issue at all though. It was like most Apple "gates" just a bit daft and over blown on the internet and as demonstrated happened with nearly all phones once your hand went around them.

I'd let Samsung off for the same thing (which was happening on their phones) anyway as it's really not an issue.

However having something that can either kill you cause tens of thousands of pounds worth of damage is a bit different.
[doublepost=1485197051][/doublepost]

Totally agree.

Antenna gate was a real issue. If it was not apple would have not designed a new system for the 4S. Phil S. even talked about the new antenna design.

 

[nutjob]

It is 2017. And you are still stuck with 2010 cassette. God bless you

The truth never expires. Also, please take your superstitious nonsense elsewhere.

 

[rohanparekh]

The truth never expires. Also, please take your superstitious nonsense elsewhere.

LOL....what you are doing is not nonsense? you need guts to move on, nothing else.

 

[dannys1]

Antenna gate was a real issue. If it was not apple would have not designed a new system for the 4S. Phil S. even talked about the new antenna design.

The antenna design changes and improves in almost every iteration of the iPhone. I'm not saying the iPhone 4's antennas were perfect (they weren't) but they weren't much worse than anything else at the time and in real day to day usage didn't affect my experience with the phone one bit.

Having something that could explode in your pocket at any moment though (due to THREE different reasons?!), that is is a terrifying issue.

 

[Zaft]

The antenna design changes and improves in almost every iteration of the iPhone. I'm not saying the iPhone 4's antennas were perfect (they weren't) but they weren't much worse than anything else at the time and in real day to day usage didn't affect my experience with the phone one bit.

Having something that could explode in your pocket at any moment though (due to THREE different reasons?!), that is is a terrifying issue.

Tests prove they were much worse then competing phones.

 

[kdarling]

The antenna design changes and improves in almost every iteration of the iPhone. I'm not saying the iPhone 4's antennas were perfect (they weren't) but they weren't much worse than anything else at the time ...

They were demonstrably worse. Repeating from post #86:

As Anandtech found out, just putting it in your hand caused a 20dB drop in signal. The previous model, the 3GS, only dropped 2dB in the same situation.

That means the iPhone 4 had over 50 times the signal drop of the 3GS when held the same way.

"The main downside to the iPhone 4 is the obvious lapse in Apple's engineering judgment. The fact that Apple didn't have the foresight to coat the stainless steel antenna band with even a fraction of an ounce worth of non-conductive material either tells us that Apple doesn't care or that it simply doesn't test thoroughly enough."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3794/the-iphone-4-review/16

Although, the actual reason it wasn't discovered was because field testers had to keep their phones in cases to hide the new shape. And testers were not allowed to talk to each other. All that secrecy hid the design mistake.

 

[I7guy]

The antenna design changes and improves in almost every iteration of the iPhone. I'm not saying the iPhone 4's antennas were perfect (they weren't) but they weren't much worse than anything else at the time and in real day to day usage didn't affect my experience with the phone one bit.

Having something that could explode in your pocket at any moment though (due to THREE different reasons?!), that is is a terrifying issue.

What is labeled "antennagate" is another blemish on steve jobs' record. A minor engineering mistake to be sure. I"m sure a quick google search can yield many examples of minor mistakes such as "antennagate".

If the title of the thread was "Engineering Mistakes Corporations Have Made", it would be a very useful example. Not so much though in a thread about the Note 7, which as you noted, that mistake could have been much, much worse, above and beyond the standard "li-ion batteries could all explode" response.

 

[trainwrecka]

Yes, Apple is very open about opening your wallet for obvious defects. $150 for iPhone 6S/6S Plus touch disease defect, $80 for defective battery that shuts down at 40%, etc.

Don't know what the "touch disease" is, but the battery was recalled and replaced for free.