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

[desura]

Eh, I just find it weird b/c Samsung wasn't on my radar at all in 2010 or 2011. Like, all I knew about were the iPhone of course, but also the Motorola Droid.

So people actually confuse the Galaxy with the iPhone? Really?

 

[golem]

Things started to do south for Nokia before WinPhone.

+1 Nokia went with Winphone because things had gone so far South, not the other way around.

 

[WelshBloke]

+1 Nokia went with Winphone because things had gone so far South, not the other way around.

And going solely with Microsoft certainly turned things round for them.

 

[bearxor]

So people actually confuse the Galaxy with the iPhone? Really?

If you were just kind of looking around and not extremely tech-savvy, would you confuse these two devices if you glanced at them for a few moments?

 

[mikegg]

Ripping off Apple.

 

[golem]

And going solely with Microsoft certainly turned things round for them.

Well that and buckets of money that MS threw at them as life support kept them around.

Everyone says that if Nokia had went with Android then they would be in a much better position. There's no real proof of this and indications that opposite would be true. The only one making big profits in Android hardware is Samsung. LG and Sony's handset lines are profitable but not in a big way. HTC I believe has started losing money recently. Against this backdrop, why do people think Nokia would have succeeded where just about everyone else failed?

Take a look at Motorola, they have the support of Google behind them and actually released a phone that got very good to great reviews. Sales however aren't great. Even if Nokia did better than Motorola with Android(no guarantee), the lack of financial backing (Google wasn't going to throw money at Nokia like MS did) would probably have doomed them.

 

[WelshBloke]

If you were just kind of looking around and not extremely tech-savvy, would you confuse these two devices if you glanced at them for a few moments?

Any reason thats a picture of the Samsung with the app drawer open rather than on the home screen?

 

[s44]

Any reason thats a picture of the Samsung with the app drawer open rather than on the home screen?

More to the point, either an obscure low-end model or hilariously resized.

 

[WelshBloke]

Well that and buckets of money that MS threw at them as life support kept them around.

They arent around. Microsoft bought them out.

Everyone says that if Nokia had went with Android then they would be in a much better position. There's no real proof of this and indications that opposite would be true. The only one making big profits in Android hardware is Samsung. LG and Sony's handset lines are profitable but not in a big way. HTC I believe has started losing money recently. Against this backdrop, why do people think Nokia would have succeeded where just about everyone else failed?

I'm not saying they should have gone solely with Android, I'm saying putting all their eggs in one basket, particularly a basket that no one was buying out off, was a bad idea.
Plus Nokia has a big following globally and a butt ton of patents.

Take a look at Motorola, they have the support of Google behind them and actually released a phone that got very good to great reviews. Sales however aren't great. Even if Nokia did better than Motorola with Android(no guarantee), the lack of financial backing (Google wasn't going to throw money at Nokia like MS did) would probably have doomed them.

Motorola are very much not a global company though, they are pretty much non existent outside of North America. Nokia are/were huge outside of North America

 

[tommo123]

And going solely with Microsoft certainly turned things round for them.

yep. i'd love to play around with the 6" phone nokia made but only if it had android on it. i've had nokia phones in the past and they were solid. MS is blocking me from having one at this point.

 

[sweenish]

If you were just kind of looking around and not extremely tech-savvy, would you confuse these two devices if you glanced at them for a few moments?

This photo is the best biased representation. Physical size difference of the phones is visually obvious; they have been re-sized in this picture. The Samsung phone shows the drawer and not the home screen, which is what people see when turning on the phone.

It's also impossible for retail confusion because you're either buying your device under the giant Apple logo or you're not.

With that said, Samsung deserved to get busted, but not as hard as they did. Apple also should have had bounce-back revoked, as I feel that Samsung actually did a great job with strong evidence in that one aspect of their trial.

Samsung's strategy paid off, they are on top of the Android heap. I hope it doesn't last, but things need to happen first. People need to become aware of the Moto X, Sony needs to push updates the way Moto has been lately and advertise, and HTC needs to advertise as well as push updates in a timely manner.

Basically, people just don't know these other phones exist and are just as good.

A friend of mine wouldn't even consider the HTC One over the S4, just because of the buzz factor around the phones.

 

[bearxor]

Any reason thats a picture of the Samsung with the app drawer open rather than on the home screen?

More to the point, either an obscure low-end model or hilariously resized.

This photo is the best biased representation. Physical size difference of the phones is visually obvious; they have been re-sized in this picture. The Samsung phone shows the drawer and not the home screen, which is what people see when turning on the phone.

It's also impossible for retail confusion because you're either buying your device under the giant Apple logo or you're not.

With that said, Samsung deserved to get busted, but not as hard as they did. Apple also should have had bounce-back revoked, as I feel that Samsung actually did a great job with strong evidence in that one aspect of their trial.

Listen, guys. I'm not trying to start a flame war on this at all. Calm down. Someone seemed puzzled that a Galaxy S could be confused with a iPhone and they clearly did not keep up with things.

I wrote some more paragraphs but it is not my intention to rehash the Apple/Samsung lawsuit in this thread.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Oh please. Samsung would have been just as successful even if it didnt infringe.

I don't know about that. Galaxy became the iPhone alternative. Part of the process was having a similar enough product that Galaxy could use some of the iPhone's market momentum.

 

[BladeVenom]

Everyone says that if Nokia had went with Android then they would be in a much better position. There's no real proof of this

Common sense. They were number one by a huge margin, and had been profitable since the beginning of cell phones. They use to sell more phones than Samsung. Than had been dominating Samsung for more than a decade.

and indications that opposite would be true.

So where's you proof? That flies in the face of common sense.

The only one making big profits in Android hardware is Samsung.

Nonsense! What about Huawei, Coolpad, ZTE, and Xiaomi? Last I heard they were all profitable. HTC was making money until recently. LG was profitable last year, and probably this year. Sony will probably be making a profit on their phones this year.

Meanwhile Nokia lost billions making Windows phones, because no one would buy them at what they cost to make.

Android phones are outselling Windows phones by more than 20 to 1.

 

[Zaap]

No one ever actually confused a Samsung phone with the iPhone. That's just butthurt Apple folklore to avoid dealing with the fact that Samsung beat Apple at a game Apple was hoping to hog all to themselves.

The net result of most of Apple's lawsuit shenanigans is that it helped put Samsung on the radar for people that didn't even care. Jane and Joe consumer: "I should check out what Samsung is doing that has Apple so worried... oh hey, wait a minute! These phones are awesome!"

And many people believe fervently that Samsung paid Apple 1B with truckloads of nickels. (Debunked, but just the other day I overheard some people laughing about it as if it were absolute fact.) So even Apple's 'win' got spun into favorable lore for Samsung.

Samsung clearly deserves to rule the roost. They make the most variety of the best phones. They've kept it consistent with the Galaxy line. The Galaxy S models (S2, S3 and S4) have been among the best phones available during the life of each, and the Galaxy Note line just brings even more to the table that no one else does. Samsung is smart in that if you don't like certain models of theirs, they give you plenty of other options to still choose them. If I didn't have the N2 and now N3, I'd probably have an S4.

HTC keeps shooting itself in the foot. I'm a tech geek and they were barely ever on my radar. The current One line (as opposed to the confusing One-Whatever-the-hell) is pretty much the first time they got things mostly right. Other times they've gotten one thing or another right, but completely dropped the ball on everything else.

A couple of HTC fanboys I know have since switched to Samsung after being fed up for various reasons with HTC. (One of my friends' HTC EVO 4G -another masterpiece of misguided marketing- fell completely apart on him halfway through his contract).

Apple is ofcourse the powerhouse player, but they offer virtually no choice. If I don't like a very narrow range of what Apple deems a smartphone, then I have no choice but to look elsewhere... like Samsung.

Sort of like someone else said: Samsung rules mostly because everyone else sucks so bad in one way or another.

 

[WelshBloke]

Listen, guys. I'm not trying to start a flame war on this at all. Calm down. Someone seemed puzzled that a Galaxy S could be confused with a iPhone and they clearly did not keep up with things.

I wrote some more paragraphs but it is not my intention to rehash the Apple/Samsung lawsuit in this thread.

I dont think anyones worked up they are just pointing out that that photo is bullshit.

Just repeating the same old tired stuff over and over doesn't make it true. The idea that someone might have bought a Galaxy S instead of an iPhone by mistake is ludicrous.

The fact that you had to post a doctored photo seems to point out far more than the two phones are black and have home buttons.

 

[WelshBloke]

No one ever actually confused a Samsung phone with the iPhone. That's just butthurt Apple folklore to avoid dealing with the fact that Samsung beat Apple at a game Apple was hoping to hog all to themselves.

The net result of most of Apple's lawsuit shenanigans is that it helped put Samsung on the radar for people that didn't even care. Jane and Joe consumer: "I should check out what Samsung is doing that has Apple so worried... oh hey, wait a minute! These phones are awesome!"

And many people believe fervently that Samsung paid Apple 1B with truckloads of nickels. (Debunked, but just the other day I overheard some people laughing about it as if it were absolute fact.) So even Apple's 'win' got spun into favorable lore for Samsung.

Samsung clearly deserves to rule the roost. They make the most variety of the best phones. They've kept it consistent with the Galaxy line. The Galaxy S models (S2, S3 and S4) have been among the best phones available during the life of each, and the Galaxy Note line just brings even more to the table that no one else does. Samsung is smart in that if you don't like certain models of theirs, they give you plenty of other options to still choose them. If I didn't have the N2 and now N3, I'd probably have an S4.

HTC keeps shooting itself in the foot. I'm a tech geek and they were barely ever on my radar. The current One line (as opposed to the confusing One-Whatever-the-hell) is pretty much the first time they got things mostly right. Other times they've gotten one thing or another right, but completely dropped the ball on everything else.

A couple of HTC fanboys I know have since switched to Samsung after being fed up for various reasons with HTC. (One of my friends' HTC EVO 4G -another masterpiece of misguided marketing- fell completely apart on him halfway through his contract).

Apple is ofcourse the powerhouse player, but they offer virtually no choice. If I don't like a very narrow range of what Apple deems a smartphone, then I have no choice but to look elsewhere... like Samsung.

Sort of like someone else said: Samsung rules mostly because everyone else sucks so bad in one way or another.

Sort of agree apart from the last line.

It just takes one phone to be very slightly better than another to be a raging success.

The LG G2 is almost my perfect phone but I'll probably wait and buy an S5 because I like AMOLED screens and I like a physical home button, Its just those two little points that are making me wait.

 

[golem]

They arent around. Microsoft bought them out.



I'm not saying they should have gone solely with Android, I'm saying putting all their eggs in one basket, particularly a basket that no one was buying out off, was a bad idea.
Plus Nokia has a big following globally and a butt ton of patents.



Motorola are very much not a global company though, they are pretty much non existent outside of North America. Nokia are/were huge outside of North America

I'm saying they are only in the relatively decent position they are in now (vs being RIM) because Microsoft threw money at them in 2011. MS bought didn't buy them out until 2013. Even with the money MS gave them, they had to have massive layoffs and sell off their headquarters. Without this cash infusion (which they wouldn't have gotten if they went WP and Android) are you sure they would still even have existed until 2013?

RIM was huge outside of North America too.

 

[Oric]

Samsung is marketing from washing machines to laptops, tv sets to bluray players tablets to phones. Great brand recognition and quality designs.

 

[golem]

Common sense. They were number one by a huge margin, and had been profitable since the beginning of cell phones. They use to sell more phones than Samsung. Than had been dominating Samsung for more than a decade.

The quarter just before Nokia announced switching to WP, Android was already number one in smartphones. Between q4 2009 and q4 2010 they lost close to 14 points of market share. That a bigger loss in both absolute terms and close to percentage terms as RIM suffered in the same period.

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/18457_large_11x01311109nd.jpg

So where's you proof? That flies in the face of common sense.


Nonsense! What about Huawei, Coolpad, ZTE, and Xiaomi? Last I heard they were all profitable. HTC was making money until recently. LG was profitable last year, and probably this year. Sony will probably be making a profit on their phones this year.

Meanwhile Nokia lost billions making Windows phones, because no one would buy them at what they cost to make.

Android phones are outselling Windows phones by more than 20 to 1.

Outside of the Chinese manufacturers (whose numbers I don't know), LG is probably the most profitable maker of Android handsets (not counting Samsung). They made $196.35 million in operating profit.

http://www.androidguys.com/2013/10/24/lg-snags-2-75b-mobile-revenue-despite-less-profitable-devices/

Nokia has an operating profit of 162 million in q3 2013. Not as good as LG, but probably better than any other Android handset maker (not based in China or called Samsung)

http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/29/5041528/nokia-q3-2013-financial-report

The Chinese manufacturers are harder to analyse. Are the profitable because they are using android or are they profitable because they are in their home market?

 

[WelshBloke]

I'm saying they are only in the relatively decent position they are in now (vs being RIM) because Microsoft threw money at them in 2011.

MS bought didn't buy them out until 2013...

I'm having a hard time putting those two points together.

Nokia mobile devices isnt in a decent position. They dont exist any more. They couldnt compete in the market any more and got bought out.

 

[WelshBloke]

The quarter just before Nokia announced switching to WP, Android was already number one in smartphones. Between q4 2009 and q4 2010 they lost close to 14 points of market share. That a bigger loss in both absolute terms and close to percentage terms as RIM suffered in the same period.

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/18457_large_11x01311109nd.jpg

Yeah but Android isnt a brand of smartphone. Nokia could have been part of that "number one in smartphones".

 

[golem]

I'm having a hard time putting those two points together.

Nokia mobile devices isnt in a decent position. They dont exist any more. They couldnt compete in the market any more and got bought out.

Nokia mobile devices was absorbed into MS, so in a sense they still exist. Just like Motorola still exist as a part of Google. Without the cash infusion from MS, they still might be an independent Nokia, but would they be in a better position in regards to sales/profitabilty? Would they have had the cash necessary to continue operations? Remember even with the cash from MS, they had to do massive layoffs and sell their head quarters.

 

[golem]

Yeah but Android isnt a brand of smartphone. Nokia could have been part of that "number one in smartphones".

That's true, but a loss of 14 percentage points in one year is huge. If they didn't switch platforms, how much longer would they have been number 1?

They switched to WP, and in the current quarter, the portion of Nokia that was absorbed into MS is pretty profitable. Not compared to what they used to be, but not bad compared to other handset makers not named Apple or Samsung.

If they hadn't taken MS offer, and the cash that came with it to continue operations. Would they have been in a better position?

 

[sweenish]

BLOCK OF TEXT.

It was HTC's to lose after the Evo 4G, that was the longstanding king of Android handsets. It was also updated frequently. They took it from Moto after they started piddling the Droid line and falling behind in updates and the whole Motoblur thing.

I agree that the breadth of Samsung's lineup is helping them incredibly. The Note series is very compelling, and is only gaining traction. The Galaxy S line is the go-to for a lot of people if they don't want an iPhone. They've done a great job branding themselves as the other smartphone company.

However, I don't think they deserve to be in the top spot anymore. It's just that it's taken the other OEMs so long to get their acts together that a lot of people don't even know these other phones exist. I loathe Touchwiz; I think it's a visual abomination that even Nova [Apex, Action, Smart, Aviary, etc.] barely cover up, far too many of the features stuffed in are worthless, and it treats users like toddlers in general. I don't really get on them for their material choice too much, but they have a hard time making their phones feel as expensive as they are. All those top of the line guts, and they don't even try on the exterior.

We're in a veritable golden age of smartphone choices these days:
HTC One - a great phone, even if I'd never own one (I hate the logo straddling, capacitive, two buttons)
Sony Xperia Z1 and ZL - great looking phones, also dust and water resistant to boot
Moto X - ignored and written off by too many vocal Android "fans" because "specs suk" even though it's one of the smoothest and most innovative handsets on the market today
Nexus 5 - the problem here is just education on how much money people can save with this phone, and that Verizon had to be the carrier with the "most coverage." I use the quotes because my city is covered, but saturated. T-Mobile puts them to shame.

And I would choose any phone from that list above over a Galaxy S-whatever any day. The Note line is very compelling, though.

I don't mention LG because their software and software support blows. Their phones are beasts, but that's only part of the story.

Hopefully this doesn't come off as rude or anything. I have a differing opinion and wanted to add to the discourse.