A report by Jungah Lee for Bloomberg News “stated that ‘the company, which overtook Apple Inc. in smartphones, has used sales of cheaper handsets in emerging markets to stoke earnings in mobiles as growth in high-end devices slows amid market saturation,'” Daniel Eran Dilger reports for AppleInsider.
“That’s a sugar coated version of what Samsung reported in its latest quarterly earnings report, where it clearly stated: ‘total shipments [of smartphones were] up QoQ led by increased sales of mass-market models,’ but ‘high-end model shipments stayed at similar level QoQ,'” Dilger reports. “In stark contrast, Apple’s iPhone sales were up 26 percent over the year ago quarter, setting a new volume record for the September quarter. All of Apple’s smartphones are ‘high end,’ unlike the outdated, 2008-era Galaxy Y model Strategy Analytics Executive Director Neil Mawston cited as an example of the ‘mass-market models’ he said were helping to ‘lift’ Samsung’s volumes.”
Dilger reports, “Samsung’s current sales and future plans consistently describe that only around one third of Samsung’s [total] ‘smartphones’ are actually comparable to Apple’s current iPhones, albeit being a generation behind.”
Much more in the full article here.
I can proudly say not 1item in my house has a samdung branded logo on it.
I will never buy any of their products again.
I appreciate your sentiment and I strive to do the same in terms of voting with my dollar. I know that I have a few Samsung 2GB HDDs – other than that I may be Samsung-free.
However, there are close to 7B other people outside of the U.S., and many of them seem satisfied to settle for a Samsung branded device. Apple’s challenge is to remain the unquestioned leader at the premium end of the mobile device market and gradually shift some of its products down to lower price points while maintaining profit margins, quality, and user experience.
You mean, other than the Samsung built chips in your iPhone?
That is why I said “samdung branded”.
@KingMel, my HDDs are that of Western Digital and Seagate with my NAS system.
What’s insane is the number of categories of product you have to pay attention to. Friggin’ company makes everything. Remodeling your kitchen? Make sure not to buy Samsung counter top material!
——RM
I would be interested in a similar type of analysis for tablets. I strongly suspect that the story is even more skewed in the tablet space, with lots of low-budget tablets flooding the markets. There are very few tablet competitors that can be considered to be in the same general class as the iPad/iPad mini.
This is clearly demonstrated by internet usage statistics that are heavily weighted towards iOS.
One third of Samsung’s total smartphones still aren’t in Apple iPhone’s class. The other two thirds are poor excuses for feature phones.
Very misleading…
None of samesungs plastic pieces of crap are the in class of the iPhone. The news here is that 2/3 are really just feature phones running android and not really “smartphones” at all.
The article clearly stated that Samsung’s phones are a generation behind Apple’s iPhones.
However, the article does not point out that Apple reports actual sales to consumers, whereas Samsung still reports “shipped” numbers and tries to call them sales. So the reality is probably even more in Apple’s favor.
I don’t think that the galaxy 4 is even in the class of last years iPhone 5.
I read that, and Comscore’s most recent market share study. The conclusion? If Samsung’s US sales patterns match its self disclosed average sales (i.e. only 1/3 are high end phones) then in the US, consumers seeking a high end smartphone are FIVE TIMES more likely to choose an iPhone in preference to a smartphone. Which sounds about right, to be honest.
However, for the U.S. market you can’t take world sales stats and apply the same ratios here (or in other developed markets).
This level of detail is useful information and a good start. It’s about time. Even more detail is needed to make the best “apples-to-apples” comparisons of device sales data. Otherwise, we end up comparing “lumps of coal” on one side to “diamonds” on the other, which makes no sense.
Analysts should not rely on blanket manufacturer assertions about the devices manufacturers themselves believe are comparable to the Apple iPhone, either: analysts should make their own individual assessments of comparability. A public debate about exactly which phones are considered comparable to the iPhone would be healthy.