Samsung overtakes Apple as most profitable global handset maker Samsung has overtaken Apple in worldwide handset-sales profits, banking $5.2bn versus Cupertino's $4.6bn in the second quarter of 2013, according to the latest data from Strategy Analytics. "With strong volumes, high wholesale prices and tight cost controls, Samsung has finally succeeded in becoming the handset industry's …
Well, it's inevitable that WinPhone will overtake Apple at some point. It's a more powerful / secure OS, and Nokia simply make better phones. Apple have nothing to touch the cameras in the 920, 9255, 1020, etc....And they have better screens, touch panels, microphones, nav, maps, etc. etc....
I am reminded of a company that is now gone called Eaton's. They focused so much on selling only "premium priced" gear that they alienated their clientele and eventually folded. Not to say that Apple is going to fold....but it is interesting to note that the cheaper 3 inch models and the larger 5 inch models have them somewhat on the ropes as it were. Samsung and others listened to their clients asking for more variety. They gave it. Meanwhile Apple insisted that their one size fits all was bang on. Now..just like Microsoft they have their tails between their legs and are "exploring" other screen sizes.
Agreed that pricing is a big problem for Apple.
The main thing for me is how incredibly limited the interface is. After spending the past year and a half on Android, I had to set up an iPhone 4s for someone in the office recently. The sheer number of settings you CAN'T change and number of things you absolutely CAN'T do on the iPhone is overwhelming and highly annoying. Especially when you get used to having tremendous flexibility with the Android.
In fact, I really can't consider an iPhone a "Smartphone" from my perspective any longer - not compared to a modern Android phone. It's really not a computing device at all - just a glorified iPod with a cell phone chip.
I would say that the iPhone achieved the status of being one step above a feature phone - and then stayed that way.
Apple have always been like that. They come up with a new thing, saying 'Hey, look what this can do!'. They aren't bad at making it dead simple for almost anybody to buy and use the thing straight out if the box, no need to plough through a million settings first, etc etc. They are also quite good at then keeping the pattern the same for future incarnations of the thing so as to retain their customer base, encourage upgrades, etc.
That's their model, and it works quite well for them. They don't need to offer an 'expert-do-what-you-want mode' to attract more market share. Anyway there's not really that many experts out there to be worthwhile chasing. They've also learnt that failing to innovate will kill them, as it almost did in the 1990's.
To me Android (from a purely commercial point of view) is totally weird. Google do all the work, Samsung make all the money. That's just nuts. In fact the amount of money Google isn't making from Android is crazy, especially when you look at all the de-Googlised versions that have flooded the biggest market in the world (China). The return on Google's investment is mostly going into other people's pockets.
And then the fragmentation of the Android world is an appalling mess. Ok, so as a consumer you can avoid it by buying a Samsung or a Nexus, but for applications developers it's a disappointment. Fortunately Samsung and Nexus adds up to a big enough market for applications developers to bother with, but they're not making as much as they might have. Another down side is that Google didn't make it hard to pirate software, so the developers get mightily ripped off. The pirates are even making money by selling ripped off APKs on the BlackBerry app store. Nor did Google come up with a way for bug fixes to make their way onto deployed handsets in an efficient manner.
So given all that, I have to humbly disagree with you on iPhone not being a smart phone. To anyone who cares about these wider issues (and security too) 'Smart' means much more than some cool technology (which Android is admittedly very good at), and they buy BlackBerries, WinPhones and iPhones depending on their requirements.
However, most people don't care about these things at all, which is why Android sells so well. And Google make just enough money to pull the wool over their shareholders' eyes, but really their poor strategy means they're missing out on a far larger fortune.
There's been a license check API since Android 1.6, but apparently not many devs used it.
Google makes money from the Play Store, which grew 150% in the last year (in app revenue) and from mobile search. Probably more important than the money the do make is that if they didn't have Android they would have less influence on what people do with their mobile devices, and their mobile revenues may have suffered because of that.
And they charge to have the Gmail, Play Store etc apps installed.
Number of things you can't do - really - perhaps you have some example that 99.9% of people would never use. Most Android users I have seen do not use the 'smart' features or ability to configure it so highly - partly as most do not need or know how to root their devices or just don't need to. The reality is most use their Androids for phone calls and text messages - very little else - some do not even have data enabled contracts.
@rvt - "Strange, and yet a iphone does everything i want it to do, i takes pictures, i can call with it, browse some internet site, and check my mail. You got to remember that this is about the usecase of a mobile phone device."
My point exactly - its a glorified feature phone.
I think you have a point. On the flip side, I found android to be confusing to use all regular users. There are so many setting to change. Sometimes people just want simple steps. Too many settings can turn off what you call smartness. If it was so smart, why do I need to change so much for one simple request.
Hardly a valid comparison.
Apple doesn't have executives who are pot heads, or race car drivers, or wanna be politicians.
Eaton's, a family owned, Canada-wide, department store was founded by a hard working immigrant Scotsman using very tight vertical integration and then neglected by the third generation who were little better than wealthy playboys.
Apple probably make more profit per handset, especially when you consider that peripherals are charged at a hefty premium. Samsung however seems to take more chances as mentioned above, not dictating but listening. Apple do make perfectly good mid market devices which it sells for premium prices, and some fapples will always buy regardless.
"Apple probably make more profit per handset"
That's an interesting trend.
First it was: Apple has the biggest smartphone market share.
A year or two later: well, it doesn't have the biggest market share, but it's easily the most profitable.
Now it's: not the most profitable, but probably makes more profit per handset.
Anyone see where this seems to be heading?
Wow, where do you two get that I'm desperately trying to big up Apple, did you even read my post before deciding to get your handbags out?
Apple almost certainly do make more cash per handset, divide the profit by the market share and it's somewhat likely. Then they charge massively for peripherals because they have tapped a niche who encourage them thanks to fancy advertising. I don't care that they do, I'll bet Vertu beat then hands down on this front for instance, just pointing out that they're hardly fucked, and some fapples will buy anything with their brand not through technical evaluation but because the adverts told them to.
"Apple almost certainly do make more cash per handset"
I take it you've considered development costs of the OS and their own app suit (maps etc.) into account? Because Apple develop all this in house, Google develops it for Samsung and they just adapt it with TouchWiz - and because of the way Android works*, that cost is likely shared between all Samsung Android devices dramatically reducing the per-device cost of development.
There are plenty of other areas to consider, i.e. running the App Store vs using Google Play and so on. All of this would need to be factored in before you can determine that Apple makes more cash per handset.
Without any hard evidence, you're making wild assumptions.
* Assuming Samsung are utilising Android's layout system, once built a single version of TouchWiz can cater to all devices, tablets and phones of any screen size alike.
"Apple probably make more profit per handset"
Never forget the desperate, rapidly collapsing evil empire makes its only contribution to the mobile industry by extorting Android manufacturers. Without their wonderful assistance, who knows what the profit and loss sheet would look like?
I read don't read the article as Samsung has overtaken Apple, I read it as smartphone sales are shrinking and the winner is becoming the second place loser (if that makes sense?).
As far as Apple taking a page from Google, well that does seem possible being they have apparently taken a page from Microsoft and stopped creating anything new at all. There is only so many times you can sell ice to an Eskimo.
My first touchscreen phone had a 3.5" screen back in 2004. When Apple invented the wheel/phone/whatever in 2007 I had a 5" touchscreen phone (which also had all of those things that apple decided phones don't need like GPS and 3G, 3rd party apps etc). Mind you, given the cost of my phone, the iPhone would have been a lower budget phone (comparatively).
Personally... I was born old.
Each of the Windows Mobile phones t hat I had was supplied with a stylus but with the larger screened units I had no need for it. In 2007 HTC developed touchFlo which helped to make the stylus redundant for many tasks.
On the smaller screens the stylus approach had the advantage of allowing more icons/tapable areas than the capacitive finger model. Rather than using a stylus I )like many others) used my finger nail rather than a stylus.
Not sure I understand why your friend could not hold a phone with one hand, use it with the other and walk at the same time.
I would like to find the marketing executive who thought up the misuse of 'premium', and hang him (it's a him, sho'nuff) by his black turtleneck. It's as bad as 'retina' display.
If you mean better, stronger or prettier materials, say so. But that tends to invite questions like 'why is aluminium better than polycarbonate when it dents and corrodes so easily?'.
Really, your iPhone is rusting now? Apart from the outer layer oxidising, thereby protecting the deeper layers, aluminium doesn't "rust" in the classic sense... Furthermore, plastic tends to deteriorate and discolour over longer periods of time (depending on what type and quality of plastic being used).
The report this article quotes makes a basic error. It assumes a % of Apple's profits that are down to the iPhone, and takes that figure forward into a comparison. Since the actual % value is unknown we have no way of knowing whether Samsung have overtaken Apple now, whether Samsung overtook Apple some time ago, or whether Apple's phone division is actually far more profitable than Samsung's is.
Hence this isn't really news. It's just some analyst out to make a name for himself by peddling faulty information.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2023
