Samsung's Goals for 2012: 'Beating Apple is #1 Priority'

[69650]

Apple just had another record quarter and is dominating the competition. Apple makes more money from smartphones than any other company in the industry

So did Blackberry 7 years ago. Now their on the edge of bankruptcy. Tides can change. Being top dog now doesn't guarantee you'll be top dog in the future. YoY sales growth has stalled and market share is falling. Clever companies don't wait for things to turn down they re-invent while they are still number one, which is why they stay on top.

Samsung are opening a big new Samsung Store in the high street where I live on Thursday. Seems like their next big target is to go after the Apple Store. I've never seen a standalone Samsung Store before so it will be interesting to see what it's like and how it compares to the Apple Store not that far away.

 

[skellener]

What's wrong with "Making the best possible products to improve people's lives"???

 

[subsonix]

Which part of "If your point is only about the screen size example we both agree it's not (yet) supporting the poster's argument" is not clear?

It's perfectly clear, you quoted me with something not related to what I said. But after that was established you went on about your other point anyway.

The poster chose a weak argument to support his argument which you correctly dismissed. I felt like providing a much better example which clearly support said argument. I'm sorry but I don't know how to better explain this to you.

His point as quoted was: Apple will release a large screen phone.

The supporting argument was: They have done market research.

As we have already established, I'm not disputing that they are doing market research.

 

[Rocketman]

The profits in this quarter in part were lower because "Samsung paid 800 billion during the quarter as a “special employee bonus to commemorate 20 years since Chairman Lee Kun-hee announced a management strategy that the company regards as the catalyst to its recent growth.” Furthermore, an extra 700 billion won was “knocked off” by a stronger won."

I am curious. Are you one of those folks that get paid to post to blog comment sections on behalf of an employer/sponsor?

In the unlikely event you are not, feel free to respond privately what your personal motives are. Thanks.

 

[SeattleMoose]

SamSung motto....."Our Imitation IS Innovation".

They wait for others to innovate, imitate, and then go to court to defend their blatant ripoffs.

 

[bryanescuela]

Now I get it!

 

[kdarling]

For years, all Apple has had to do to crush their rivals is offer a bigger screen and a few more customization options and the fight is over.

Well, that, and cut their profit margins in half to make their phones more affordable.

Otherwise a big screen won't make much difference outside of places which have subsidies, where the iPhone is priced under $200.

(Some people talk about Android sales including low or mid price ranges, yet it's at a lower price range where the iPhone also does best. This is just the nature of smartphone sales. Around the world, subsidized or not, under $250 is what the majority of people are willing to pay out of pocket.)

With unsubsidized, people really have to weigh price vs. features. It's hard to justify spending almost twice as much for an iPhone (or high end Samsung), when the other choice is something like a Xiaomi Mi3 with a 5" HD screen, double the RAM, double the battery size, etc.

In other words, size isn't everything. Price is the other big factor in many countries.

 

[PsychoLogicXen]

More like Part XII, isn't it?

Very true.

 

[bsolar]

It's perfectly clear, you quoted me with something not related to what I said. But after that was established you went on about your other point anyway.



His point as quoted was: Apple will release a large screen phone.

The supporting argument was: They have done market research.

As we have already established, I'm not disputing that they are doing market research.

That's fine if your goal is to limit the debate about the screen size issue alone, but taken in the context of the poster's argument a reader might assume that since the screen size example is weak his point about Apple having to catch up competitors in specific areas is baseless, which is not the case as Jobs' email clearly shows.

 

[subsonix]

That's fine if your goal is to limit the debate about the screen size issue alone

That's exactly my goal.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Right. Then on Steve Jobs first day back, he said

'We have to stop the notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to fail.'

.... and then he partnered with Bill Gates to get Office to the Mac.

Exactly!

While there may be one "winner" in a market... that doesn't mean the rest of the players are "losers"

Burger King will never sell as many hamburgers as McDonald's. That will simply never happen.

But that doesn't mean Burger King needs to pack up and exit the fast food market.

Honda will never sell as many cars as Toyota... but I don't think they are crying about that.

----------

So Samsung were providing evidence of Apple's internal documents which showed they were worried about their competition, when in fact Samsung has been worrying about Apple.

What's funny is that we're only talking about 2 companies... Samsung and Apple.

It must really suck to be one of the DOZEN other companies in the smartphone market... the companies who will NEVER be as successful as Samsung and Apple.

I wonder what the internal documents look like at LG... knowing they will NEVER sell as many smartphones as Samsung or Apple.

 

[the-msa]

There isn't a single unsubsidized phone that costs under $500 and isn't old technology or crap.

sadly, you only seem to know the apple website. open your mind, broaden your horizon.

Anyone notice the core difference between the approach of the 2 companies...? Apple internal meetings acknowledged the competition and spoke about how to IMPROVE their products and beat competition... These guys are just about Marketing marketing marketing... No word of improving products anywhere...

the best product is of no use when you dont have marketing.

the other way around, you can sell inferior products when you have good marketing.
want an example? look at imac and macbook. old, outdated hardware sold for twice the price.
no other company would get away with selling a laptop with gt750m for 2600€ when others sell laptops with the gt750m for 700€. its their marketing and religiously fanatic userbase.

 

[lilo777]

I am curious. Are you one of those folks that get paid to post to blog comment sections on behalf of an employer/sponsor?

In the unlikely event you are not, feel free to respond privately what your personal motives are. Thanks.

Who are those folks? Is there a place to apply? If I could get paid for my posts I would be tempted (it would be stupid not to). Unfortunately nobody pays me for my posts. And I do not see a need in PM either. My motives are exactly the same are the motives of others here - I am expressing my opinions. And unlike some, I am not questioning the motives of others.

 

[brendu]

WRONG!

Ever heard of the Nexus range? It wipes the floor with the iPhone 5C and gives the 5S a damn good run for it's money.

WRONG! The nexus range is heavily subsidized by google. Go buy it through a carrier unlocked and you will see it's over $500. Try again.

 

[LordVic]

WRONG! The nexus range is heavily subsidized by google. Go buy it through a carrier unlocked and you will see it's over $500. Try again.

but you can buy it for < $400 unlocked direct from Google.

Just because your carrier decides to throw their own profit margin on the device, doesn't mean thats the actual price.

the MSRP from google on the Nexus is $350. Go yell at your carrier for trying to screw you.

Then go buy it directly from Google.

 

[cdmoore74]

This is exactly what's wrong with this industry.

Too many companies are using all their time trying to outdo and copy one another rather than focusing on what consumers actually want.

So what do customers want? Obviously a single device like the iPhone cannot satisfy everyone. Just look at the number of comments here on Macrumors stating that they would love a large iPhone while others would hate it. Or better yet look at Apple’s own internal docs. It’s very clear that the iPhone is not a one size fits all device. Samsung on the other hand makes many phones and tablets to fit a wide range of customers. Some customers want the Galaxy series while others want the Note series. This idea of a one size fits all device has hurt Apple. The corrective action is to have 2 to 3 flagships at various sizes (4”, 4.7” and 5.5”) with no difference in internal specs (other than screen resolutions but similar DPI). The other difference would be price. Let the customer decide if a device is too big or small by making choices available to them and what their willing to pay for.

 

[brendu]

sadly, you only seem to know the apple website. open your mind, broaden your horizon.

I follow all smartphones pretty close. School me. What phone is available under $500 unlocked that isn't using 2+ year old technology or isn't crap. And please don't say nexus phones. They too are subsidized heavily. Only difference is google subsidizes them instead of carriers.

----------

but you can buy it for < $400 unlocked direct from Google.

Just because your carrier decides to throw their own profit margin on the device, doesn't mean thats the actual price.

the MSRP from google on the Nexus is $350. Go yell at your carrier for trying to screw you.

Then go buy it directly from Google.

The point was that it's a subsidized phone. Google is eating hundreds on it. Its not the true cost of the phone. LG sure couldn't sell it for that price.

----------

So what do customers want? Obviously a single device like the iPhone cannot satisfy everyone. Just look at the number of comments here on Macrumors stating that they would love a large iPhone while others would hate it. Or better yet look at Apple’s own internal docs. It’s very clear that the iPhone is not a one size fits all device. Samsung on the other hand makes many phones and tablets to fit a wide range of customers. Some customers want the Galaxy series while others want the Note series. This idea of a one size fits all device has hurt Apple. The corrective action is to have 2 to 3 flagships at various sizes (4”, 4.7” and 5.5”) with no difference in internal specs (other than screen resolutions but similar DPI). The other difference would be price. Let the customer decide if a device is too big or small by making choices available to them and what their willing to pay for.

I agree the one size fits all hurts apple in some ways but it has also been a big factor in why their profits are so ridiculously high compared to anyone else.

 

[LordVic]

The point was that it's a subsidized phone. Google is eating hundreds on it. Its not the true cost of the phone. LG sure couldn't sell it for that price.

Right, but we never talk about true costs of phones, just what you can buy them at.

Cost of the device at wholesale or manufacturing has little to do with you or I. on the flipside, if you look at the iPhone, an unsubsidized price of $650, you know that Apple is making 40% profit off that.

So the $650 you or I paid for an iphone isnt' the true cost of it either... its 40% less than what we pay so that Apple can have a bigger profit margin and ultimately better bottom line.

They just play the game differently. Neither is "right or wrong". The true cost to you or I is only what we can buy the device at. For the Nexus, thats $350. For the iPhone, thats $650.

 

[brendu]

Right, but we never talk about true costs of phones, just what you can buy them at.

Cost of the device at wholesale or manufacturing has little to do with you or I. on the flipside, if you look at the iPhone, an unsubsidized price of $650, you know that Apple is making 40% profit off that.

So the $650 you or I paid for an iphone isnt' the true cost of it either... its 40% less than what we pay so that Apple can have a bigger profit margin and ultimately better bottom line.

They just play the game differently. Neither is "right or wrong". The true cost to you or I is only what we can buy the device at. For the Nexus, thats $350. For the iPhone, thats $650.

I get what your saying and it's all fair. The point I am trying to make was in response to someone saying apple charges too much for their phones and that just isn't true. ALL high end phones cost $500+ unlocked. The nexus range is the only exception and the reason is because google pays for part of the phone so you will be locked into their services. LG sells those phones to google for more than google sells them for.

 

[cdmoore74]

WRONG! The nexus range is heavily subsidized by google. Go buy it through a carrier unlocked and you will see it's over $500. Try again.

What lack of information! From day one you could buy an unlocked Nexus 5 16gig for $350 with no contract with the 32gig costing only $50 more. Only a fool would pay more than MSRP. The carriers were trying to cheat customers because the phone was so cheap. It was not Google.

 

[LordVic]

I get what your saying and it's all fair. The point I am trying to make was in response to someone saying apple charges too much for their phones and that just isn't true. ALL high end phones cost $500+ unlocked. The nexus range is the only exception and the reason is because google pays for part of the phone so you will be locked into their services. LG sells those phones to google for more than google sells them for.

yes very true.

fair enough.

the $650 price point seems to be the Defacto standard for flagship devices, no matter size, shape, features or design.

we all know we could probably buy them cheaper, and still give Apple and Samsung enough profit, and on the flipside, Nexus probably could fetch more than what Google sells at beacuse they do eat the cost. They sell the phone as a "loss leader" and make up for it with their services and add support...

Hopefully nobody in their right mind doesn't understand that concept.

 

[brendu]

What lack of information! From day one you could buy an unlocked Nexus 5 16gig for $350 with no contract with the 32gig costing only $50 more. Only a fool would pay more than MSRP. The carriers were trying to cheat customers because the phone was so cheap. It was not Google.

You are wrong. The carriers bought it from LG which is why it cost more. Google also bought it from LG but they covered a large part of the price so they had a competitively priced device to market toward developers. Google wisely offers it to anyone which is awesome for consumers but has nothing to do with the fact that the LG made nexus 5 is an expensive phone when google doesn't subsidize it.

----------

yes very true.

fair enough.

the $650 price point seems to be the Defacto standard for flagship devices, no matter size, shape, features or design.

we all know we could probably buy them cheaper, and still give Apple and Samsung enough profit, and on the flipside, Nexus probably could fetch more than what Google sells at beacuse they do eat the cost. They sell the phone as a "loss leader" and make up for it with their services and add support...

Hopefully nobody in their right mind doesn't understand that concept.

Thank you. That's all I was trying to say and people went bonkers.

 

[Kabeyun]

Stop with this propaganda. Everybody knows that Samsung now makes more profits than Apple. They might be making a little less profits than Apple in mobile in general but I believe in their profits in smartphones are actually higher than that of Apple.

Nope.

http://bgr.com/2014/03/18/apple-samsung-smartphone-profits-3/

Their capital expenditures are order of magnitude higher, their R&D budget is way higher.

Source, please.

 

[PatriotInvasion]

Well, that, and cut their profit margins in half to make their phones more affordable.

Otherwise a big screen won't make much difference outside of places which have subsidies, where the iPhone is priced under $200.

(Some people talk about Android sales including low or mid price ranges, yet it's at a lower price range where the iPhone also does best. This is just the nature of smartphone sales. Around the world, subsidized or not, under $250 is what the majority of people are willing to pay out of pocket.)

With unsubsidized, people really have to weigh price vs. features. It's hard to justify spending almost twice as much for an iPhone (or high end Samsung), when the other choice is something like a Xiaomi Mi3 with a 5" HD screen, double the RAM, double the battery size, etc.

In other words, size isn't everything. Price is the other big factor in many countries.

I was speaking from a very American point of view I suppose where here, the iPhone and high-end Android phones all hover around $199 with the carrier subsidies. Price is not really a huge factor here because all the phones competing at the top cost about the same.

That is starting to change with carriers lowering plan prices and doing away with contracts and subsidies; however, they are allowing customers to finance the cost of the phone interest free over 24 months which allows for high end phones to be obtained for $0 upfront and affordable monthly payments on top of the plan costs.

 

[lilo777]

Nope.

http://bgr.com/2014/03/18/apple-samsung-smartphone-profits-3/



Source, please.

CNN Money: