Samsung sells 63 million smartphones, dominates the market

[BillyBarnes]

Wow! Samsung is enjoying good lead in the market today.

But I would say, to be honest, they deserve it. Their flagship phones, Galaxy SII and SIII are really awesome. I remember when Galaxy SII came, how people rushed to buy it, and it was a great phone.

I have iPhone 4S, and was thinking to upgrade it to samsung galaxy SIII, but then thought to wait a moment to see when S IV will be launched

 

[ChazUK]

What's left for Samsung? They are absolutely crushing Apple, and I think the GS4 will be the final blow.

There is no way on earth anything will ever deliver a "final blow" to the iPhone (Or Galaxy S series for that matter).

Both will exist and be enjoyed by millions release after release. Neither has to die.

 

[jamojamo]

You realize that the vast majority of their smartphone sales are made up of the s3 and the note ii. Not to mention apple still sells the iPhone 4.


Samsungs profit increased 74 percent last quarter over the same quarter the previous year. That's a much better year over year growth than apple experienced.

Where do they break down the figures? I didn't see the breakout in the article.

I assume Samsung has the same issues as Apple does selling the "top of the line" devices. I know the Galaxy line just hit the 100 million milestone so not sure if the vast majority were the premiums, probably a good portion but I would guess the largest chunk would be the mid-tier phones.

Impressive numbers though to say the least.

Still when you look at the chart it's clear this is currently a two pony race. Not sure that bodes well for any true "competition".

OP: Not sure the G4 will be the "final blow" to Apple, nor am I sure why you would want any company to have a monopoly. Tends to have a bad result on the consumers.

 

[blackhand1001]

Where do they break down the figures? I didn't see the breakout in the article.

I assume Samsung has the same issues as Apple does selling the "top of the line" devices. I know the Galaxy line just hit the 100 million milestone so not sure if the vast majority were the premiums, probably a good portion but I would guess the largest chunk would be the mid-tier phones.

Impressive numbers though to say the least.

Still when you look at the chart it's clear this is currently a two pony race. Not sure that bodes well for any true "competition".

OP: Not sure the G4 will be the "final blow" to Apple, nor am I sure why you would want any company to have a monopoly. Tends to have a bad result on the consumers.

Unlike apple, the lower tier galaxy phones aren't promoted at all. (sure they only advertise the 5, but they are advertising the iphone in general as well) In the US the carriers pretty much have the s3 and the note II. Some may have left over s2's but thats really it as far as what they carry. The galaxy s3 is by far samsungs best selling phone. Outside the US the S3 actually fairs much better against the iphone than the in the US as apples relies heavily on carrier subsidies to get people to buy their phones. When those aren't part of the equation the samsung phones end up being a better deal for the most part. I don't think apple would do nearly as well if the carriers made the subsidy the same as all the other phones and the iphone started at 300-400 on contract.

 

[flawlessvictory]

Unlike apple, the lower tier galaxy phones aren't promoted at all. (sure they only advertise the 5, but they are advertising the iphone in general as well) In the US the carriers pretty much have the s3 and the note II. Some may have left over s2's but thats really it as far as what they carry. The galaxy s3 is by far samsungs best selling phone. Outside the US the S3 actually fairs much better against the iphone than the in the US as apples relies heavily on carrier subsidies to get people to buy their phones. When those aren't part of the equation the samsung phones end up being a better deal for the most part. I don't think apple would do nearly as well if the carriers made the subsidy the same as all the other phones and the iphone started at 300-400 on contract.

This is false. When was the last time you walked into a carrier store? From my experience, the lower tier smartphones are pushed on customers more than the high end. And its not without reason, in general people are cheap. I walked into a T-Mobile looking for a Nexus 4 and the salespeople were trying hard to push the GS2 and other various Samsung models.

I guess you can make the argument that Apple is advertising all iphones... if you'll look past the whole "iPhone 5" text at the end.

 

[dojoman]

Unlike apple, the lower tier galaxy phones aren't promoted at all. (sure they only advertise the 5, but they are advertising the iphone in general as well) In the US the carriers pretty much have the s3 and the note II. Some may have left over s2's but thats really it as far as what they carry. The galaxy s3 is by far samsungs best selling phone. Outside the US the S3 actually fairs much better against the iphone than the in the US as apples relies heavily on carrier subsidies to get people to buy their phones. When those aren't part of the equation the samsung phones end up being a better deal for the most part. I don't think apple would do nearly as well if the carriers made the subsidy the same as all the other phones and the iphone started at 300-400 on contract.

You got it backward. At my work IT is giving away free Galaxy S3 whereas $199 for iPhone 5. Retailers make more money by selling Android phones.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Image

Given that Samsung made nearly $12B in just Q2 and Q3 2012 alone, that graphic is rubbish. Even if this weren't true, the graphic is misleading as it attempts to minimise the appearance of Samsungs profit by diluting it with the profits of three large, but relatively unprofitable companies.

Hey I know, next time find a graphic which groups Samsung with companies who made losses. Then you can actually minus that from the Samsung profits to more strongly "prove" your rubbish argument.

----------

Q4 '12 data from both Samung and Apple indicate that Samsung made 8.3b$ profits to Apple's 13.1b$.

That's a lot closer than your data and graph hint it... Maybe you should stop spreading FUD based on outdated data.

^^ This, but not only this, the other figures are not just outdated, they are incorrect. It wouldn't surprise me if those so called profit figures for Samsung (in the graphic posted by sinsin07) are only for phones.. or their consumer division....because they certainly aren't for the entire company.

 

[flameproof]

The topic is profit.

The topic is: Samsung sells 63 million smartphones, dominates the market

Good to have choice. No more to add.

 

[adztaylor]

The topic is: Samsung sells 63 million smartphones, dominates the market

Good to have choice. No more to add.

The OP has since changed the thread title, it was originally Samsung record profits.

 

[appletoandroid]

The OP has since changed the thread title, it was originally Samsung record profits.

the threads were merged fyi.

 

[onthecouchagain]

I don't think the point here is that Samsung is winning or losing to Apple. I think the point is that samsung is a serious force to be reckoned with.

And more importantly that apple is realizing the potential danger. It would be folly to think there's no threat to their business.

 

[0dev]

All this arguing about figures is silly. Apple and Samsung have different business models.

Apple does not care about dominating the market, they care about dominating specifically the high end market. They've done that very well with their computers, their phones, and their tablets. They make one or two options for their product lines rather than a whole range of different products and price them high. They can do this because they already have strong brand recognition.

Samsung (and indeed other smartphone and PC makers) generally care more about marketshare than profits, so they go for high volume and a lot of different models. The thinking behind this is that higher marketshare equals more brand recognition which will make them more profit in the long term like Apple is able to do now.

Remember that Apple started out selling iPods with an HP logo on the back just to get them out there. This is because you need to build up a strong marketshare before you can adopt the model Apple has today. In the long term Samsung wants to take up Apple's model, even to the extent that they're working on their own OS, Tizen (although I hope they keep making Android phones too), right now they're playing catch up and they're doing very well at it. If you look at their focus on getting products out there and playful ads attacking their competition, aren't they just like Apple was a few years ago with the cheap iPods and Mac Minis and the Mac vs. PC ads? Think about it.

 

[theluggage]

Apple does not care about dominating the market, they care about dominating specifically the high end market.
[snip]
Samsung (and indeed other smartphone and PC makers) generally care more about marketshare than profits, so they go for high volume and a lot of different models.

Well, yes, Apple has had a long honeymoon with the high end all to itself while Android targeted the shallower pockets. However, the SIII and Note 2 are aimed firmly at the 'high end' and you can tell from the conversations here that they're in direct competition with the iPhone. I think that's new.

 

[0dev]

Well, yes, Apple has had a long honeymoon with the high end all to itself while Android targeted the shallower pockets. However, the SIII and Note 2 are aimed firmly at the 'high end' and you can tell from the conversations here that they're in direct competition with the iPhone. I think that's new.

Of course, the GS3 and N2 are high end, but my point is they also do a lot of low end devices like the Galaxy Mini too in order to boost their marketshare whereas Apple doesn't.

 

[TheHateMachine]

I assume Samsung has the same issues as Apple does selling the "top of the line" devices. I know the Galaxy line just hit the 100 million milestone so not sure if the vast majority were the premiums, probably a good portion but I would guess the largest chunk would be the mid-tier phones.

The 100 million was for the Galaxy S line where there is essentially only 3 models. The S1, S2 and S3. Both the 1 and 2 however have multiple variants to account for different networks, LTE and different processors that were compatible with only certain networks. (See TMobile S2 variant) they also carried different names because of the carrier. They were all essentially the same phone. So it is safe to assume that the majority of their smartphones are Galaxy S devices as that is the phone line they have always brought up record sales numbers for.