• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Samsung takes smartphone crown in Q3; Android marketshare in Asia triples

jpeyton

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
And yes, I'm well aware that Samsung gained the crown because of Apple's delays:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204485304576642421355724538.html

Then again, Android's marketshare in Asia went from 16% in 2010 to 52% in 2011, with Samsung and HTC reaping most of the benefits.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sm...head-of-the-pack-says-abi-research-2011-10-20

And in a prediction of how massive the low-end smartphone market is, market research firms are predicting that Android handsets under the $150 mark will ship almost 340 million units/year by 2015.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/10/20/prweb8880719.DTL

That would put total Android device shipments (high-end and low-end) over 500 million units/year.
 
jpeyton said:
And in a prediction of how massive the low-end smartphone market is, market research firms are predicting that Android handsets under the $150 mark will ship almost 340 million units/year by 2015
Click to expand...

I'm curious, does a subsidized phone price that falls under that $150 count as a low end device?
 
Red Storm said:
I'm curious, does a subsidized phone price that falls under that $150 count as a low end device?
Click to expand...
No, because an overwhelming majority of the world's mobile phone users don't bother with subsidized phones.

In the US, a typical subsidized smartphone contract is $200 upfront and an agreement to pay $2000-$3000 over two years. That's far from low cost.
 
Last edited:
Red Storm said:
Thought so.

I wonder how much the plans are for these low end phones...
Click to expand...
Quite low compared to the US. Not only do major US carriers have the highest post-paid rates in the world, but their pre-paid rates are even higher than that.

That's the opposite of what you'll find in other countries. Pre-paid mobile is king worldwide based on the number of users.

Minimum_Cost.JPG
 
Last edited:
jpeyton said:
Quite low compared to the US. Not only do major US carriers have the highest post-paid rates in the world, but their pre-paid rates are even higher than that.

That's the opposite of what you'll find in other countries. Pre-paid mobile is king worldwide based on the number of users.

Minimum_Cost.JPG
Click to expand...

Ugh, Canada is the worst. D: Though I should have expected that. I hate the system up here.

KT
 
Both the US and Canada cover vast amounts of land. Covering Hong Kong isn't the same as covering California.
 
rstove02 said:
Why do I fear that with the crown-taking more lawsuits will not be far behind?
Click to expand...

Actually, I think Apple saw the writing on the wall with the Galaxy SII and it was then that they knew they had to stop Android. They go after Samsung first because there phones, at least until the new batch just coming out, were the closest to duplicating the iPhone look-and-feel. Apple no doubt felt that if they go after Samsung and win then the other Android players will be easier to attack.

Apple makes a great phone and Jobs has to be commended for seeing that come about but Jobs is also Apples biggest problem by the way he painted Apple into a corner with comments about nobody wanting a big phone and if it has a stylus then they fucked up. I think Apple now sees that not making a large phone to counter the large phone competition is costing them and with Jobs around they weren't going to make a large phone so they needed to attack with lawyers...


Brian
 
KeithTalent said:
Ugh, Canada is the worst. D: Though I should have expected that. I hate the system up here.

KT
Click to expand...

Worst part is that it's 3 year contracts compared to 2 year in the states, and once you add some features to those $50 basic smartphone plans you end up with $75-100 monthly fees after taxes... insane.
Good thing there are companies like wind and mobilicity with their $30-35 unlimited plans, wtf is robellus thinking.
 
rstove02 said:
Why do I fear that with the crown-taking more lawsuits will not be far behind?
Click to expand...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20123511-37/steve-jobs-felt-android-was-a-stolen-product/

Steve Jobs said:
I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this.
Click to expand...
Dying breath spent.
 
Brian Stirling said:
Actually, I think Apple saw the writing on the wall with the Galaxy SII and it was then that they knew they had to stop Android. They go after Samsung first because there phones, at least until the new batch just coming out, were the closest to duplicating the iPhone look-and-feel. Apple no doubt felt that if they go after Samsung and win then the other Android players will be easier to attack.
Click to expand...

This has been pretty common knowledge. Apple's watched Android pummel their market share and outsell iPhone models 3 to 1. With their long product cycles, it'd be incredibly difficult for them to compete against Moto, HTC, Samsung, and LG. Especially since Google makes the bulk of the software, Qualcomm & TI make the bulk of the SoCs, the other handset makers can bring new&varied products to market at a much quicker pace. Apple's suits are bogus, also common knowledge(Samsung needs lawyers that aren't idiots though), but litigation is one of the few options they have.
 
jpeyton said:
And yes, I'm well aware that Samsung gained the crown because of Apple's delays:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204485304576642421355724538.html

Then again, Android's marketshare in Asia went from 16% in 2010 to 52% in 2011, with Samsung and HTC reaping most of the benefits.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sm...head-of-the-pack-says-abi-research-2011-10-20

And in a prediction of how massive the low-end smartphone market is, market research firms are predicting that Android handsets under the $150 mark will ship almost 340 million units/year by 2015.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/10/20/prweb8880719.DTL

That would put total Android device shipments (high-end and low-end) over 500 million units/year.
Click to expand...

how much profit is made on them?

acer and asus were at 4% net margins a few years ago pushing netbooks until the ipad came out and killed their profits
 
Bateluer said:
This has been pretty common knowledge. Apple's watched Android pummel their market share and outsell iPhone models 3 to 1. With their long product cycles, it'd be incredibly difficult for them to compete against Moto, HTC, Samsung, and LG. Especially since Google makes the bulk of the software, Qualcomm & TI make the bulk of the SoCs, the other handset makers can bring new&varied products to market at a much quicker pace. Apple's suits are bogus, also common knowledge(Samsung needs lawyers that aren't idiots though), but litigation is one of the few options they have.
Click to expand...

I would hope that 40+ phones, some of which are free, from multiple manfacturers would outsell 1 type of phone from 1 manufacturer. Otherwise mega business fail.

The fact that a single manufacturer has as large a share as Apple does is incredible. Thinking it would remain number 1 when competing against such a large number is pretty dumb.

If you want Apple (haha) to apples comparison compare Samsung vs. Apple or HTC vs. Apple etc. Only Samsung is putting up some real competition, because they make great phones.

The Android fanatics seem so threatened that Apple makes a good phone for some reason, that they do anything they can to justify their purchase. Makes me embarrased to be an Android fan myself sometimes.

Here is an Apple to apples comparison:

Samsung Q3 Profit Estimated: $3.6bn
Apple Q4 Profit: $6.6bn

Who is doing better?
 
Last edited:
It's literally Apple vs HTC, Samsung, Motorola, Sony, etc. Apple will not be a leader in market share for mobile phones ever but you bet your ass they are going stack that cash like a BOSS.
 
I'm sure Steve Jobs was pretty pissed at Android, not only because it has close ties with iOS, but because it became successful.

I don't think Apple will be taking out Android, but their iPhone will probably be around for quite some time.
 
J-Money said:
Here is an Apple to apples comparison:

Samsung Q3 Profit Estimated: $3.6bn
Apple Q4 Profit: $6.6bn

Who is doing better?
Click to expand...
That's one way of looking at it.

Another way would be:

Every dollar spent on Android phones is one less dollar spent on iPhones (and $3.6 billion is a lot of dollars).

Every contract signed with an Android handset means a user is locked into the Android ecosystem for 2 years (and 20 million is a lot of handsets).

A user who invests in one app/music/movie ecosystem is less likely to throw those purchases away and start anew with another incompatible ecosystem; they're locked-in psychologically. Apple built iTunes/App Store on this premise, but Android market works in this manner as well.

This is a land grab, pure and simple. Google and their partners are making a tidy profit on Android right now, but their concern isn't to beat Apple's historically sky-high margins. Their concern is to get Android in the hands of every user possible, and worry about extracting the maximum profit after those users are invested and locked-in to their ecosystem.
 
Let's be real here. Google is making a land grab. The partners don't give two shits about the land grab. Why would they? The partners (HTC, Samsung, etc&#8230😉 make zero dollars on the 'google ecosystem'. Samsung's profits do not increase because there are more people in the 'google ecosystem'. Their profits increase when they sell more phones. Plain and simple.

I believe these carriers will eventually make their own ecosystem on their phones outside of google. Very similar to what amazon did with the kindle fire. They need to find some way to pull in more profit and this is the easiest way to do it. The carriers have absolutely no incentive to not install bloatware and other crap on their phones.

Their interests are only aligned in the sense that android is helping them sell phones. If android stays the dominant source of their phone sales they will continue to be partners. If something else bigger and better comes along that will increase the phone makers profits, you sure as hell know they will jump ship. There is no loyalty in this game.
 
cheezy321 said:
Let's be real here. Google is making a land grab. The partners don't give two shits about the land grab. Why would they? The partners (HTC, Samsung, etc…) make zero dollars on the 'google ecosystem'. Samsung's profits do not increase because there are more people in the 'google ecosystem'. Their profits increase when they sell more phones. Plain and simple.

I believe these carriers will eventually make their own ecosystem on their phones outside of google. Very similar to what amazon did with the kindle fire. They need to find some way to pull in more profit and this is the easiest way to do it. The carriers have absolutely no incentive to not install bloatware and other crap on their phones.

Their interests are only aligned in the sense that android is helping them sell phones. If android stays the dominant source of their phone sales they will continue to be partners. If something else bigger and better comes along that will increase the phone makers profits, you sure as hell know they will jump ship. There is no loyalty in this game.
Click to expand...
They could try and make their own OS but that requires resources. Plus, there's no telling if people would buy the phone if there's no developers coding apps for it. Look at what happened to the webOS.
 
her209 said:
They could try and make their own OS but that requires resources. Plus, there's no telling if people would buy the phone if there's no developers coding apps for it. Look at what happened to the webOS.
Click to expand...

Very true. its also hard to beat free* with android as well. I am just pointing out that google increasing its marketshare through it's land grab does not affect the bottom line of the phone manufacturers. Their interests are not aligned in this aspect.
 
cheezy321 said:
Very true. its also hard to beat free* with android as well. I am just pointing out that google increasing its marketshare through it's land grab does not affect the bottom line of the phone manufacturers. Their interests are not aligned in this aspect.
Click to expand...

That is why Microsoft feels WM7 still has a chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top