Okay, so how did Samsung end up ruling android phones?

[desura]

Shortly after the iphone was announced, the first android handset was actually built by HTC, right? The HTC G1 for Tmobile, with the chin and the screen that flipped out for a keyboard underneath.

So how is it that HTC is struggling (despite, IMO, superior build quality and design) compared to Samsung?

 

[Midwayman]

Better marketing? I don't really think it was until the S2, that Samsung was really a thing. Before that it was just another android maker.

 

[bearxor]

Samsung had (has) a far greater production capability than all the other phone makers. They were able to produce multiple versions of devices, catering to all the carriers wishes, in multiple price tiers quickly and easily.

 

[Joe1987]

They were able to change up production quickly, and took risks with their products.

Their corporate culture is that they're in a holy war against the other manufacturers. They are ruthless.

 

[tvdang7]

samsung decided to make a unified line while htc made every dumb name possible (sensation,sensation XE,)with carrier exclusives (droid incredible ,EVO,htc one X).I was cheering for them back then. I even had an htc phone i like the kick stand the sense but after a while too many phones came and you would ask "Hey what phone is that " and unless you were a true phone nerd you probably wouldn't know what a sensation or a wildfire was. While the S line of samsung is now very well known you can even walk into MOST but not all stores and find cases for s3 and s4 just like iphones.

 

[jpiniero]

Ripping off Apple. I'd argue that HTC, et al were harmed more than Apple was.

 

[WelshBloke]

HTC were great up until the Desire or so, then they sort of lost thier way.

Unfortunately for them thats about the time that Samsung released the S2 which was a great phone which stole all HTCs toys and kicked them in the nuts. Htc never really recovered.

 

[zebrax2]

In my country at least
1.) Availability. You can find Samsung phones on almost every store while those that carry HTC are far and few.
2.) Brand Recognition. If you asked someone here what HTC is when they launched their android phone and even a year after that most of them would probably say they have no idea.
3.) Price. While their launch price is comparable to Samsung they are pretty slow with their price drops. (Most of the phone sold here are out of contract)
4.) Naming. You have evo, hero, legend, desire, wildfire, aria, etc... Samsung did it right sticking with galaxy

 

[RagingBITCH]

Marketing budget, simply put. Their marketing budget doubled when the S2 came out, and has increased a crapload of money since. They pulled an Apple and made everyone think they needed the phone.

 

[lopri]

Things just happen sometimes and stars align. I am guessing that Google reached out multiple OEMs and Samsung bet big.

 

[Roland00Address]

Lets not forget that htc made a lot of crappy phones in the 2011. These phones didn't really improve on their 2010 line.

At the same time, samsung came out the galaxy s2 which was a better phone, with unifed naming across the carriers, as well as a larger marketing budget.

 

[Graze]

Lets not forget that htc made a lot of crappy phones in the 2011. These phones didn't really improve on their 2010 line.

At the same time, samsung came out the galaxy s2 which was a better phone, with unifed naming across the carriers, as well as a larger marketing budget.

This. Man did HTC make some crap. It was only when the launched the HTC One X last year did I pay attention to them.

 

[KentState]

IMO, the Motorola Droid was the phone that put Android on the map. HTC might have been first, but that phone launched in a beta state lacking features like Active-sync capabilities. I know a couple people that jumped on the first HTC and then dumped them instantly for an iPhone.

 

[Ravynmagi]

I think Samsung has been doing a nice job with branding and marketing.

We got the Galaxy S, then Galaxy SII the next year, then the Galaxy S3, and Galaxy S4. Samsung has stuck consistently with that branding.

I don't think there is any other brand that has anything close to that recognition. HTC's One branding is confusing, the One X, followed by the One, doesn't even make sense. Verizon's Droid branding is a bit better, but it's from different manufactures and you listed those phones I couldn't tell you which one is new and which is two years old.

I also think Samsung has done great by getting their phones out to all the major carriers at the same time or close to it. This carrier exclusivity crap that HTC, Motorola, and LG are doing seems like complete self sabotage to me. I can't imagine what the carriers are paying for these exclusivities could be worth what they are probably lossing as a result of it.

And I'm sure being a major supplier of displays, memory, processors and other components helps.

 

[WelshBloke]

IMO, the Motorola Droid was the phone that put Android on the map. HTC might have been first, but that phone launched in a beta state lacking features like Active-sync capabilities. I know a couple people that jumped on the first HTC and then dumped them instantly for an iPhone.

If your talking one carrier in one country then maybe.

For everyone else it was HTC, and they pissed it away.

 

[BladeVenom]

I don't know why Samsung beat HTC, but I know why the beat Nokia. Nokia went with Windows. Nokia was number one by a large margin, until they announced they were abandoning Symbian, and going Windows exclusively. Sales and profits quickly plummeted. So now Samsung is where Nokia used to be.

 

[Graze]

I don't know why Samsung beat HTC, but I know why the beat Nokia. Nokia went with Windows. Nokia was number one by a large margin, until they announced they were abandoning Symbian, and going Windows exclusively. Sales and profits quickly plummeted. So now Samsung is where Nokia used to be.

Things started to do south for Nokia before WinPhone.

 

[KentState]

If your talking one carrier in one country then maybe.

For everyone else it was HTC, and they pissed it away.

Verizon was a strong force in making Android what it is today. They pushed it ahead in spite of Apple and the botched opportunities.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Verizon was a strong force in making Android what it is today. They pushed it ahead in spite of Apple and the botched opportunities.

It was one phone in one country. The number of Motorola Droids sold were very few compared to Galaxy S phones. Motorola was what got the US finally into Android, but HTC was already there in the rest of the world. Samsung was the one that really made Android mainstream.

With that said, what made Samsung strong was several things:

1) US specific: They came out with the Galaxy S on ALL carriers. The same happened with the GS2 minus Verizon, but that's still pretty decent. The S3 was where they really increased their lead and it helped once again with all carriers aligned.

2) HTC launched phones on single carriers in the US a lot of times, and fragmented the global picture. I think had they pushed the Sensation across all 4 carriers, they would've done pretty well to fight off the GS2.

3) HTC had major fragmentation. Had they not done a mid-year refresh every year, they would've had a solid line to fight against Samsung.

4) In a time where Android was completely unpolished, they did some things right. Stock android was missing EVERYTHING. Samsung introduced quick toggles and a lot of other useful features. They had a hardware accelerated launcher and browser when Android was running like a slideshow.

5) The whole marketing thing is probably bigger in the US. I saw plenty of HTC ads all around Asia back in 2011.

6) Samsung used a unified product portfolio with the Galaxy name. It makes it very easy to follow, like the iPhone.

7) Good marketing and brand recognition really helped them. Despite the fact that I think the stock Galaxy S4 is shit with TouchWiz and what not, it's the only phone people recognize from the Android side. It's really between a "Galaxy" or an iPhone for 90% of those smartphone shoppers. That's pretty sad.

8) Timing. They stormed the market in force when it actually counted. They may not have the best products today, but they had the best back then. HTC took too long to realize their mistakes and correct themselves at the HTC One. Far too late.

In my opinion Motorola started out pretty well, then HTC did a good job with the Desire and possibly Sensation. Samsung had great hardware features like fast CPU, great camera, and I would've gone with them through the GS2. By the time the GS3 came out, there was little reason to go with Samsung, and to me that was the turning point where TouchWiz showed its trashiness and the Nexus phones started rising due to the awesomeness of ICS and Holo. By now, I think there's little reason to even get a Samsung phone other than for its hardware specs and sd card capabilities. If you're talking about out of the box user interface, I'd pick an HTC One any day.

 

[Bateluer]

Verizon was a strong force in making Android what it is today. They pushed it ahead in spite of Apple and the botched opportunities.

Verizon backed Android because they wanted a platform they could control, Apple wanted control over iOS and wouldn't let Verizon royally cock it up. In the end, Verizon's marketing brought Android to the mainstream, and eventually the dominant player, in the US.

For Samsung, in a nutshell, than 500M dollar advertising budget combined with versatility and production. Samsung can produce a dud phone or take risks on a different design, eg, the Galaxy Note or Galaxy Gear, and if it flops, it doesn't hurt them as a company. For HTC, who only makes phones, multiple flops in a row is devastating.

 

[s44]

Marketing budget, simply put.

LOL. This is why Surface is ruling the tablet world, right?

Samsung got a foothold (and were always eventually going to be a force) for the same reasons LG is relevant today: component tech and vertical integration. SAMOLED was and is freakin' amazing, and Samsung was able to fab the guts of their devices because, well, they'd been doing it for Apple for years.

From there it was iteration, intelligent and iterative variation (remember, Samsung released the first modern 7" tablet and the first >5" smartphone... and compare the Streak to the Note!) and seizing the moment when they undoubtedly had the best phone on any platform for almost a whole year (the Galaxy S2). Yeah, the latter took a marketing budget, but it was backed by a really good full-spectrum product portfolio.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Things started to do south for Nokia before WinPhone.

Nokia gained in 2010, but it was clear even though the numbers were good in early 2010, the momentum was lost.

I think it became pretty clear by the time the N97 was released and Symbian S60v5 was going to be a hackjob for touchscreens that they would not have a good iPhone competitor. HTC actually did a stellar job with Windows Mobile going against the iPhone. The Touch Diamond or Touch Diamond 2 may not have dethroned the iPhone, but they did what they could to hang on.

 

[Exophase]

A Samsung phone will usually contain a Samsung manufactured display and DRAM. It'll also often contain Samsung made flash, SoC, PMIC, and/or battery. This gives them some real advantages in pricing and time to market.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

HTC screwed up their execution big time, up to (and arguably including) the One X. Whereas Samsung spent a lot more effort on marketing, and shamelessly ripped off Apple left and right whilst most people (me included, unfortunately) were too dumb to notice.

 

[shortylickens]

For Shorty:

Better quality, more features, faster, reliable, decent battery, sharp screen, large screen, good radios.